Has FIRE become “spendy”?

[JupiterGreen]

I had actually thought I'd eventually move some place more rural, lcol but picturesque, with a hobby farm for the long haul in retirement after doing my "traveling years". My impression of such communities was that they were older fashioned but charming. Finding out about about the political angle in 2016 was eye opening. I no longer entertain any such ideas.

Good thing you didn't move. We live in one of these LCOL places and it sucks on the daily. This is the main reason we started saving. We cannot wait to get out.

I don't want to get too involved in this conversation because it's exhausting. But my partner and I have been living in one of these "LCOL" places for almost two decades, if you have never done so please don't assume they are the same as a MCOL or HCOL area. We will be moving back to a M-HCOL area in the next couple of years and we will never go back to any of those states (over the years, I've lived in 3 of these crappy states).
 

[ChpBstrd]

Honestly, you sound like a snob. 

Snob (n):

     1) a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.

     2) a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field:

A snob would be someone who says "my preferred wine / premium car / audio system / chef / cigar / other luxury provider is TOTALLY worth it, and I feel sorry for anyone who cannot experience it." I on the other hand, am saying all these expensive places cost more than can be explained by the specific amenities there, and are probably not worth spending years or decades at a job just to cover that difference. I'm declining the amenities you describe on the basis of cost and you're describing the HCOL lifestyle as totally worth it because of the superior experience one gets from living in such places (presumably net of the experience of paying the costs).

Kudos for going to the beach "multiple days per week" and when this one activity is the thing which satisfies you, but most people who live near a beach don't. That's why the beaches in most beach cities are not populated by 300,000 locals every day plus the tourists. The theater scene in big cities is populated by - what? - 3-5k people per weekend out of a population of millions? Similarly, a tiny sub-1% fraction of the population of Denver is on the ski slopes any given day. What percentage of people in your 20 mile metro area visit the beach on any given day?

It must have been hectic managing the local tourism schedule you described, but you got to see all the things several times each and that's a lot more than most residents get out of their local amenities. Most residents can't afford to take off work that often, have no time left after the commutes, or prefer to watch TV or YouTube.

Louisville, Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Birmingham, Oklahoma City, etc. all have theaters, zoos, and museums but I suppose there is something not good enough about them? Having been to theaters, zoos, and museums in both HCOL and LCOL places I can't tell a consistent difference other than the $10-25 parking passes in HCOL areas, but then again I'm not "an expert or connoisseur" in each of these fields so maybe I'm missing out and don't have the sense to know it.

I don't know why you don't understand this, when you answer your own question. Yes, it's a combination of many, many details and amenities that make one area more desirable then another. It's not just "a beach", "weather", or Broadway. Most (sane) people don't move everything they have for one simple thing like that.
You say:

this is a reason to go LCOL, because you'll enjoy the amenities regardless of where you are.

But you can't, if things you care about don't exist in LCOL areas!

I'm going to translate this into an economic proposition: Some mixtures of amenities are worth massive premiums and other mixtures of amenities are worth nearly zero, even if the locals are engaged either way and similarly happy. As the Toronto versus LA comparison indicates, there are high-cost amenity mixes that are completely different from one another but for whatever reason hit the right notes. Similarly, there are low-cost amenity mixes that contain the same components as multiple high-cost mixes, but because the specific combination is different, these have little value.

E.g. both New York City and St. Louis have more theater options on any given day than you have time to see, but New York has the Statue of Liberty you can visit. The combo of theater plus SoL tour makes NYC worth more than the sum of its parts, right? The St. Louis arch plus theaters is not the same combination and is not worth as much. The proof is that it's more expensive to live in NYC than in St. Louis, therefore NYC must be a better place to live. I see a circle.

You also mention the rarity of "things you care about". Presumably this includes geographic and cultural specifics that only exist in certain places. E.g. small towns and rural areas can be inconvenient drives from theaters running off-Broadway plays. I also get that some activities are more popular than others: e.g. sitting in the sun on a beach appears to be more popular than snowmobiling, and golf appears to be more popular than canoeing. There are 2 assumptions here that seem to justify paying a higher COL to be near a particular amenity rather than exploring new things and adapting to more affordable environments, less specific activities, and cheaper hobbies:

1) You like the things you like because they are inherently better, not because you were socially conditioned to like those things. E.g. golf is inherently more fun than hiking and that's why people spend more money to golf than they pay to hike. The association between golf and wealth/class has nothing to do with it at all. Nor does it matter that you at one point had to work to get into a social and professional circle of people who play golf. It's not what other people are doing or what they think; it's that the particular activity or amenity has inherent value. I.e. my idea of fun would be fun to anybody from any background, culture, or personality.
 
2) The things you like are more expensive because they are inherently better in a universal way. The people who have different hobbies and amenities are missing out. They get less satisfaction from their cheaper hobbies and LCOL area local amenities. They live diminished lives for not living in an expensive area near a beach / golf course / ski slope / cultural attraction, perhaps because they cannot afford these inherently better things that everyone wants. It doesn't matter if people in North Dakota or Minnesota are actually happier than people in California or Oregon, they're only in such places because they can't afford to leave.

Presumably you live where you live for more than the reason it's cheap? If price is your only criteria I'm sure you could find a shack in Alaska for $100. Why don't you live there? Because it doesn't have a road, and 300 miles to groceries? Well there you go; amenities. They count.

This is a false dilemma because nobody is talking about living in uninhabited areas. I'm comparing apples to apples: HCOL cities to LCOL cities, HCOL towns to LCOL towns, and HCOL rural areas to LCOL rural areas, all in the United States. Amenities and things to do are everywhere I'm talking about.

Also for your AR towns; just want to point out that I went to each one on greatschools, and looking at houses near the better schools in town you can double those prices, at least. I mean, you can buy a house for $75k in Baltimore, or another for $1 mill. Only a few miles apart. But the quality of life will be very different, even though it's "the same city"..

Yes, every American city has it's high-status neighborhoods and its low-status slums, and these are typically a few miles apart. So let's zoom my thesis down to the level of one city. The residents of the high-status neighborhood and the low-status slum are both a short drive from the same amenities, be it a beach, a theater scene, a fancy market, a mountain trail, museums, specific industry jobs, etc. If nearby amenities explain the difference between HCOL and LCOL areas, then how do we explain the vast differences between costs within the same city, among people who are equidistant from the same attractions?

If local public school standardized test scores explain the difference within cities or between HCOL and LCOL places, then I would think there's an arbitrage opportunity: Spend a half million dollars less on housing and read bedtime stories to your kids. There are few things that make as big a difference to your particular kid's outcome than this simple thing. No matter how much you spend to get into a 'good' school zone, your kid is not going to care about math, science, or literature if you don't.

My neighborhood has the public schools with the highest standardized test scores in my city. Several neighbors send their kids to private or charter schools anyway - with similar or lower standardized test scores. Why don't they take advantage of this amenity of our neighborhood? Or, if they're not going to take advantage, why don't they live in one of the cheaper neighborhoods a couple miles down the road? It's hard to explain until you start talking in terms of status signaling and conspicuous consumption. The private school yard signs are notable clues.

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

Are you claiming this trend can continue forever? Will salaries ever catch up to $80k per year housing appreciation on those $1.4M houses?

More importantly, if amenities explain the high prices, in what way did LA change its amenities over the past 10 years so that houses are now worth more than double what they were worth before? Did the utility of the amenities more than double?

I think it's more interesting that your comparison property was an Airbnb. The introduction of Airbnb/VRBO made it easier to speculate on RE by providing higher cash flows than the locals could afford to pay in rent. Can this trend continue forever, or was it a one-time transformation?

[Mariposa]

There is something about living in a highly dense, diverse place among politically reasonable people that I find worth paying for. I live in a neighborhood with a population density of 60,000 per sq mile, where hundreds of languages are spoken by people living close together. I'm constantly running into people I know and making new friends. I can walk my kid to school in 5 minutes and pick up fruit from the cheap produce shop on the way home. We're an 8 minute walk from 5 subway lines. Most importantly, my neurodivergent kid can be himself, because there isn't a monoculture here.

All of that adds to our quality of life on a daily basis. And then there are the amenities: I can bike to 2 indoor ice rinks in 30 minutes, so I've been ice skating 2-3x a week for the past year. If I wanted to change up my hobbies, there's also a climbing gym and fencing nearby. The beach is an hour away, and I could take up surfing. Of course, all the world-class art museums, theater, music, etc which we used to enjoy in our pre-kid lives.

And the employment opportunities. I could probably find work anywhere, but my DH can only work his particular job in NYC.

The downside of all this is: housing is extremely expensive, we live in a relatively small space, there's more noise ...

[Villanelle]

So most people don't go to the beach often. And that somehow means that clearly the reason they live in expensive cities is so they can brag about it?  That's nonsensical.

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it.  You are claiming to be an expert in their motivations, when clearly you know nothing about them.  And just that concept--"they only live there so they can say they live there--is dripping with disdain. And you can't accept that other people view HCOL cities as worthwhile when you don't, IOW, that they have different opinions and tastes--and you boil that down to them simply being obsessed with the image of their zip code.

Yeah, I'd say it meets your cut and paste definition of snob, pretty perfectly.

And you continue the condescention with things like, " It must have been hectic managing the local tourism schedule you described."  But no, it wasn't "hectic".  I went for a long walk on the beach most days.  Usually about 2 weekend days a month, DH and I could go to the zoo and walk around for an hour or two.  The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever.  We are leaving them the bulk of our estate.  So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city. And going to the theater a handful of times a year?  hardly a "hectic" schedule.  Once again, your condescension is showing.  Badly.   

And I also want a place I can walk to my errands, with local, independent shops where the owners and employees know me and i feel great about what my dollars support, but that is in the shadow of those other great things I mention. That's super rare, and if I layer my weather requirements (never mind the beach love) on top of them, I literally have never found (and I've researched it a bit) another place that checks those boxes. 

I also like the diversity in those areas, and I just just mean race, gender, sexual preference, etc.  There's a diversity of thought I find appealing.  I'm sure that's available in other areas, some of which cost less, but it's another advantage that combines with all the other things I love about San Diego and that have *NOTHING AT ALL* to do with being able to brag that I live in an area where my hose costs more than that of a friend who lives in Louisville, which would just be silly.

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights.  How is that different than me saying anyone who lives in a cheap place is simple, ignorant, and has no appreciation for culture?  (To be clear, I don't believe that, even a little.) 

Oh, and the SD zoo has free parking.  ;)

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.  Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you?  Do you really think your living arrangement is the exact point at which it stops being about money-bragging?  Everything cheaper than your place isn't quite right for you, for legit reasons, but everything more expensive is filled 100% with people who just want to brag?  Not with people who have family there or like the weather or found a job they enjoy or that appeals to them there or has great surfing then they are really into surfing or has access to so many museums that they could visit one a month and not run out for a decade, or ...?  Do you actually think that those aren't real factors and that it's just about bragging?

Even if we stipulate that those factors aren't real and they are just ignorant perceptions, that *still* doesn't mean people choose to live there because they want to brag.  It just means they are ignorant about what they can find in a cheaper city. 

[jeroly]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Another common claim is that HCOL areas are where the jobs are. This rings hollow in a world where LCOL areas have very low unemployment rates - often lower than the HCOL areas. It especially rings hollow in a world where a typical-salary job in a LCOL area can enable a person to buy a large home, pay for their kids' college, and travel, whereas salaries in HCOL areas don't make up for the higher cost for most people, and leave many residents renting small and inconvenient apartments.

While a very low unemployment rate would certainly help to drive up both wages and prices, I think that a bigger driver of high housing costs is the level of wages rather than the level of employment.  You can't consider buying a house unless you've managed to save up a down payment and qualify for a mortgage (or can pay cash) and a seller can't sell at a high price if no one can afford to pay it. Bentonville, AR, cited earlier in this thread, serves as an example - it's not about the amenities (beaches, theater, etc.) versus the rest of Arkansas - it's that there are relatively high paying jobs there that drives higher housing prices.

[StarBright]

Louisville, Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Birmingham, Oklahoma City, etc. all have theaters, zoos, and museums but I suppose there is something not good enough about them? Having been to theaters, zoos, and museums in both HCOL and LCOL places I can't tell a consistent difference other than the $10-25 parking passes in HCOL areas, but then again I'm not "an expert or connoisseur" in each of these fields so maybe I'm missing out and don't have the sense to know it.

SNIP . . . .
E.g. both New York City and St. Louis have more theater options on any given day than you have time to see, but New York has the Statue of Liberty you can visit. The combo of theater plus SoL tour makes NYC worth more than the sum of its parts, right? The St. Louis arch plus theaters is not the same combination and is not worth as much. The proof is that it's more expensive to live in NYC than in St. Louis, therefore NYC must be a better place to live. I see a circle.

SNIP . . .
 I'm comparing apples to apples: HCOL cities to LCOL cities, HCOL towns to LCOL towns, and HCOL rural areas to LCOL rural areas, all in the United States. Amenities and things to do are everywhere I'm talking about.

Not sure why you seem to be doubling down on this? It seems pretty obvious that people like different things and are willing to pay for them.

Having lived in many cities (including two you listed above), plus several pricier cities I feel I can confidently say that you really aren't comparing apples to apples. You are comparing a 5lb bag of apples to an apple. If I love apples, then I probably prefer the 5lb bag!

Indianapolis has 2 wonderful large art museums. NYC has well over a hundred, many with the best traveling exhibits in the world.

Indy has two prof theaters, and two places that host traveling shows - none of which show experimental or new stuff. NYC's theater scene requires no explanation.

While they may both have plenty of options on any given day, we're talking about living somewhere for an extended period of time.

If I'm going to live somewhere for years, I want options. I even like hiking, and if I was going to prioritize an area on outdoor activities, I'd make sure there were diverse ones available to me over the long term.

But it isn't just amenities within the cities themselves, it is also their proximity to other cities with excellent amenities (or on the west coast I feel like it is amenities and weather). I lived in the Amtrak Acela Corridor for over a decade and it was wonderful  - even when I lived in Baltimore, I saw more shows in NYC than I saw shows in Louisville when I lived in Louisville.

And there are some places in this country that you couldn't pay me to live, based on their bad fit. My inlaws offered to buy us a house if moved nearer to them in central TN. Politics and religion aside, there isn't much to do there except pontoon, hang on the river, and hike. I like those things once or twice a year, but even though we could FIRE tomorrow if we took them up on their offer, we aren't taking them up on their offer.

[Log]

Another wrinkle to add into any "cost of living" discourse - we're of course talking mostly about cost of housing. And the gulf between cost of rent and cost to buy a home is consistently wider in places with more expensive housing. So a place with cheap housing is much more appealing if you're operating under the faulty assumption that you HAVE to be a homeowner or else you're a failure in life.

Instead of downpayment savings laying fallow in a savings account, you can funnel more money in index funds faster, giving it more time to appreciate until you reach the point where your stash covers your rent in perpetuity.

///

Honestly though, this whole back-and-forth comes back to people rationalizing why their decisions were the "correct" ones. No one wants to tell their life story in a manner in which they fucked up an important decision, so of course everyone who lives in a HCOL place has a whole host of very compelling reasons why it's worth it, and everyone in a LCOL area has their own very compelling reasons why their decision was the correct path to follow. That's just how humans work.

@ChpBstrd in particular though - you still haven't acknowledged that there's far more to culture than cultural institutions. Culture is made up of people, their values, their social mores. The people of NYC, Boston, San Francisco, and Toronto are all different from each other. And they're different from people of St Louis or Buffalo in many ways aside from just economics. There are starving artists and service workers and middle class people in all these expensive cities too, and they're different from the starving artists/service workers/middle class folks of LCOL cities. People want to be with their people, and they're willing to pay good money for that.

Many starving artists of NYC have higher status than comfortably middle class artists in cheaper cities with mediocre art scenes, within their particular art scene. Are these people insane idiots for living in NYC "just for status"? Or are they people who care deeply about doing good work, making great art? Maybe expensive rent is a cost worth paying just to be a part of something that's beautiful at a world-class kind of level. Certainly their contributions to great art confer status, and it's naive to say that's not a motivating factor at all. But it's also utterly wrong to say that they're motivated only by status, when they're obviously also driven by a desire to make something meaningful, and be a part of an amazing community.

One could equally argue that an artist who chooses a LCOL city is taking advantage of being in a cheaper housing market and less competitive arts scene in order to reap more economic reward for mediocre work. That they're the one that's engaged in shallow status-seeking, because they care more about the ego boost of being a big fish in a small pond and signaling middle class respectability. That they care too much about the material comforts of a house and a nice car. Obviously though, there's a lot of value and beauty in a smaller community having its own local art and artists. That's admirable work too, but I'm just saying the perspective can be taken that either one of these life choices is a virtuous sacrifice, or that either one of these life choices is vapid status-seeking.

EVERYONE engages in status-signaling to their tribe(s) of choice. The HCOL starving artist gets more status from their peers in the artistic community, the LCOL middle-class artist maybe signals more status to their neighbors and their family who don't "get" the arts world. The HCOL Yuppie with an SUV and designer clothes signals spendy-pants normie status, while you, through your LCOL evangelism, are just putting out a sort of Mustachian purity-test status signal.

Seeing status-signaling in everything has a nugget of truth to it, but adopting status signals as a grand "theory of everything" is a great way to fall into an endless pit of cynicism. We fall into community with people who agree with us about what life decisions are admirable/status-conferring, aka the values of different cultures. You can read human behavior through all kinds of lenses, and if the status lens is one of cynicism and negativity, I find that the lens of people seeking community brings a little more joy and love to the world.

[Ron Scott]

I have visited and lived in LCOL and HCOL areas. There are pluses and minuses.

On average, the HCOL areas are more fun. You certainly have to be selective, but if you play it right you get what you pay for. IMO.

If living in low cost environments floats your boat however go for it!

[mistymoney]

Frankly, when multiple people assume I am there because I share their right wing views and go off on a rant about liberals, California and transexuals upon meeting me, I can't see white cis me fitting in there, either. And yes, that is our actual experience when we visit family and go out and about on our own. There are pockets where it doesn't happen, but it costs more to not be harassed like that.

I was thinking more about this statement yesterday.....are they really assuming you share their view? Or "testing" you to see if you do? Or even testing/warning you if you don't share those viewpoints?

[erp]

...

I was thinking more about this statement yesterday.....are they really assuming you share their view? Or "testing" you to see if you do? Or even testing/warning you if you don't share those viewpoints?

While I'm not the OP, I do live in a pretty rural place where I have this sort of conversation regularly. In my experience, yes - they *absolutely* assume that you share their view. If I weren't a white/cis/etc. person, then they'd be more likely to moderate that discussion, but I've had people express literal shock when I mention even the most minor suggestion that I wouldn't vote conservatively.

I suspect that a lot of it is just that if you're white/rich/etc then that's assumed to map to a whole bunch of other values.

[Metalcat]

...

I was thinking more about this statement yesterday.....are they really assuming you share their view? Or "testing" you to see if you do? Or even testing/warning you if you don't share those viewpoints?

While I'm not the OP, I do live in a pretty rural place where I have this sort of conversation regularly. In my experience, yes - they *absolutely* assume that you share their view. If I weren't a white/cis/etc. person, then they'd be more likely to moderate that discussion, but I've had people express literal shock when I mention even the most minor suggestion that I wouldn't vote conservatively.

I suspect that a lot of it is just that if you're white/rich/etc then that's assumed to map to a whole bunch of other values.

Yeah, I'm in a rural community and locals absolutely assume what my political opinion are just because I live there.

The rural community where I grew up is the same. Except there, you would likely be run out of town if you said something conservative.

[Scandium]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Have you heard of mortgages?

[Scandium]

So most people don't go to the beach often. And that somehow means that clearly the reason they live in expensive cities is so they can brag about it?  That's nonsensical.

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it.  You are claiming to be an expert in their motivations, when clearly you know nothing about them.  And just that concept--"they only live there so they can say they live there--is dripping with disdain. And you can't accept that other people view HCOL cities as worthwhile when you don't, IOW, that they have different opinions and tastes--and you boil that down to them simply being obsessed with the image of their zip code.

Yeah, I'd say it meets your cut and paste definition of snob, pretty perfectly.

And you continue the condescention with things like, " It must have been hectic managing the local tourism schedule you described."  But no, it wasn't "hectic".  I went for a long walk on the beach most days.  Usually about 2 weekend days a month, DH and I could go to the zoo and walk around for an hour or two.  The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever.  We are leaving them the bulk of our estate.  So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city. And going to the theater a handful of times a year?  hardly a "hectic" schedule.  Once again, your condescension is showing.  Badly.   

And I also want a place I can walk to my errands, with local, independent shops where the owners and employees know me and i feel great about what my dollars support, but that is in the shadow of those other great things I mention. That's super rare, and if I layer my weather requirements (never mind the beach love) on top of them, I literally have never found (and I've researched it a bit) another place that checks those boxes. 

I also like the diversity in those areas, and I just just mean race, gender, sexual preference, etc.  There's a diversity of thought I find appealing.  I'm sure that's available in other areas, some of which cost less, but it's another advantage that combines with all the other things I love about San Diego and that have *NOTHING AT ALL* to do with being able to brag that I live in an area where my hose costs more than that of a friend who lives in Louisville, which would just be silly.

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights.  How is that different than me saying anyone who lives in a cheap place is simple, ignorant, and has no appreciation for culture?  (To be clear, I don't believe that, even a little.) 

Oh, and the SD zoo has free parking.  ;)

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.  Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you?  Do you really think your living arrangement is the exact point at which it stops being about money-bragging?  Everything cheaper than your place isn't quite right for you, for legit reasons, but everything more expensive is filled 100% with people who just want to brag?  Not with people who have family there or like the weather or found a job they enjoy or that appeals to them there or has great surfing then they are really into surfing or has access to so many museums that they could visit one a month and not run out for a decade, or ...?  Do you actually think that those aren't real factors and that it's just about bragging?

Even if we stipulate that those factors aren't real and they are just ignorant perceptions, that *still* doesn't mean people choose to live there because they want to brag.  It just means they are ignorant about what they can find in a cheaper city.

Thank you, you said the same as I was thinking!
I'm not going to engage with Cheapbstrd. They seem incapable or unwilling to understand or engage in a good-faith discussion of plus and minuses of LCOL/HCOL. The amount of derision about other people's choices, or even implying none of us even made a well-thought out choice! We're just emotionally "status signaling" by living where we do??! Going on about number theaters in a city, beach visits/month or whatever. I even tried to say, as you do, that the density, politics, vibrancy and range of cultural differences of this area are our favorite features! You can't say "Louisville also has a zoo" to make up for that *facepalm
(and also note; when I hear LCOL I don't really think of the biggest metro areas in the south. Those get pretty expensive, at least MCOL? I usually think very rural is LCOL..). The houses near good schools in Louisville were the same price as mine! 

I fully acknowledge there are many great things about LCOL, rural, or whatever areas. I think many area great, I visit them often. We go hiking, take our kids to farms (I mean, 20 min away is full on farmland here..) etc. I can see why people would live in these place, sometimes I've thought about it myself. But I go through my priorities and I decide on balance I'd rather stay in this ~M/HCOL area. That some are completely incapable of understanding the reveres is... baffling.

[Villanelle]

Frankly, when multiple people assume I am there because I share their right wing views and go off on a rant about liberals, California and transexuals upon meeting me, I can't see white cis me fitting in there, either. And yes, that is our actual experience when we visit family and go out and about on our own. There are pockets where it doesn't happen, but it costs more to not be harassed like that.

I was thinking more about this statement yesterday.....are they really assuming you share their view? Or "testing" you to see if you do? Or even testing/warning you if you don't share those viewpoints?

A friend told me a story about moving to suburban Tennessee.  She'd been getting to know a neighbor and they seemed to be kitting it off.  Then the neighbor commented on another neighborhood and said she could never live there as it is "so dark".  My friend commented that she hadn't noticed any fewer streetlights in that area than in their neighborhood, and then realized that wasn't the kind of "dark" the neighbor meant.

Of course, these things can happen anywhere.  But my instinct tells me they are more likely to happen in some areas than others.  Not because there aren't racists everywhere, but at a minimum they are usually less bold about the filth when they think it will be well-received. Most racists have enough awareness to code-shift as necessary to hide what they know won't be well-received. Additionally, people with certain beliefs (of all kinds) tend to be drawn to areas with many people with similar beliefs.  Contrary to what some people in this thread seem to believe, that sort of ideological/cultural fit is a major factor in many people decisions, whether that to a specific city, or to a specific area in a city.  And that works with both these less pleasant (I guess I have to add "IMO"?) views like racism and other bigotry, and also with more liberal views.  So someone living in an area where bigotry is command and embraced and out in the open is certainly more likely to assume someone else there shares those beliefs, and therefore be more free about expressing them.
 

[Scandium]

You also mention the rarity of "things you care about". Presumably this includes geographic and cultural specifics that only exist in certain places. E.g. small towns and rural areas can be inconvenient drives from theaters running off-Broadway plays. I also get that some activities are more popular than others: e.g. sitting in the sun on a beach appears to be more popular than snowmobiling, and golf appears to be more popular than canoeing. There are 2 assumptions here that seem to justify paying a higher COL to be near a particular amenity rather than exploring new things and adapting to more affordable environments, less specific activities, and cheaper hobbies:

1) You like the things you like because they are inherently better, not because you were socially conditioned to like those things. E.g. golf is inherently more fun than hiking and that's why people spend more money to golf than they pay to hike. The association between golf and wealth/class has nothing to do with it at all. Nor does it matter that you at one point had to work to get into a social and professional circle of people who play golf. It's not what other people are doing or what they think; it's that the particular activity or amenity has inherent value. I.e. my idea of fun would be fun to anybody from any background, culture, or personality.
 
2) The things you like are more expensive because they are inherently better in a universal way. The people who have different hobbies and amenities are missing out. They get less satisfaction from their cheaper hobbies and LCOL area local amenities. They live diminished lives for not living in an expensive area near a beach / golf course / ski slope / cultural attraction, perhaps because they cannot afford these inherently better things that everyone wants. It doesn't matter if people in North Dakota or Minnesota are actually happier than people in California or Oregon, they're only in such places because they can't afford to leave.

Ok, i had to respond here. What.are.you.talking.about?! Your continued insistence on trying to simplify and break down complex lifestyle decisions into rational analysis is increasingly absurd and pretty funny (and I'm a hyperrational engineer type!)
I don't understand this, I guess this prove I'm a HCOL-living dummy. Are you saying golf is also just status signaling? For one thing I see lots of golf courses out in the countryside here, so not sure it's a just "rich thing" (I've never played myself). We should move to bumfuck Idaho and canoe instead? UHm, sure. I love canoeing. I got one from craigslist!

Oh, and second; my impression is "country folk" do a lot of snowmobiling, ATV riding and hunting (and big truck driving). Hardly cheap activities! I went to a hunting store with my dad. Holy shits the amount of horrendously expensive gear they need! Makes an LV purse habit look reasonable.. I keep saying; people don't decide on their living location solely based on hobbies! 

My neighborhood has the public schools with the highest standardized test scores in my city. Several neighbors send their kids to private or charter schools anyway - with similar or lower standardized test scores. Why don't they take advantage of this amenity of our neighborhood? Or, if they're not going to take advantage, why don't they live in one of the cheaper neighborhoods a couple miles down the road? It's hard to explain until you start talking in terms of status signaling and conspicuous consumption. The private school yard signs are notable clues.

So.. Because "your neighbors" use a private school, nobody else picking a location based on schools or truthful?? :S Private school here is $25k/year x 2  kids x 13 years = $650,000. My house costs $200k more than your Louisville example. I think I got a pretty good deal!

[getsorted]

Also funny to call Louisville a "smaller city". The metro area has 1.3 mill people, it would be the 5th largest in the UK! The city itself has more people than Baltimore or DC. (But per zillow I does look cheap-ish).

Not to quibble, but Louisville is one of those rare Midwestern cities with a consolidated metro/county government, which makes the population seem much larger than it is. It is definitely not larger than DC; it's just that all the surrounding suburbs are counted in the "metro area" population, unlike most cities.

People in Louisville are proud of this because the city/county government splits were absolutely done for racist reasons and contribute to city impoverishment. But they do make it hard to compare city populations accurately.

[ChpBstrd]

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it. 

I'm coming across as bragging about not living near the beach? I'm bragging about living in a cheap house in a less-popular place? That would certainly be a new way of being condescending - bragging about what one doesn't have! Re-read the definition... slowly. In the meantime maybe I'll gloat about the holes in my socks. :)

The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever... So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city.

Now this is fascinating. You did not visit lots of different zoos or theaters to determine which ones are your favorites, but because they are not in HCOL areas you can assume they are lower "quality". This opens up new possibilities to explain the disconnect. I've talked to lots of people from HCOL areas and have noted that they tend to travel only to other HCOL areas, and generally see flyover country as a place where there's nothing good. In other words, maybe the HCOL residents are paying $1.4M for a basic house because they have an inaccurate view of their alternatives. I.e. they assume they would be miserable in Kansas City because the theater actors would have high school level talent, because there are no walkable neighborhoods, because there are no local businesses, because everyone is a red-hatter, because the zoo probably looks like an animal shelter, because all the people think the same, etc... I've ignored these tropes and stereotypes up until now, but as they've piled up the theme is becoming unavoidable. Maybe it's the tropes and stereotypes that are persuading HCOL area residents to pay outrageous costs to live where they live?

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights. 

I never said social status is about bragging. People who live in their city's most expensive neighborhoods or who drive luxury brand cars don't walk down the sidewalk bragging "did you know I drive a BMW?" or "hey, Zillow says my house is worth $2M!". They quietly buy the status they buy and everyone can see it.

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.

I live where I live because of inertia, satisfaction, and because there's no reason to go elsewhere. I've traveled all over the US, lived several different ways, discovered all sorts of interesting things and found some lifestyles I wouldn't appreciate. I discovered that I could choose to live where amenity or benefit X is more convenient or plentiful, but that it would cost me $$$ while depriving me of something else. I don't think I live in an outstanding place, but the tradeoffs are as satisfactory as anywhere else.

The HCOL places I've examined very closely, including on the ground, are not places where I can imagine owning a home, having kids, putting a kid through college, and having a travel/recreation budget while saving for an early retirement. The mystery is why people in HCOL areas who say they wish these things were even possible don't take the deal that is right in front of them. 

Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you? 

Interesting question. I do live in a place in the US with a better-than-average ratio of earnings to cost of living. Indianapolis and Kansas City are slightly better according to the statistics, but the stats can jump around and it's not a big enough difference to persuade me to move. The absolute cheapest way to live in the US would be very different from my lifestyle or from the experience of living in one of these major cities. Is this bragging? It sure doesn't feel like bragging. I don't think I've heard anyone brag about their LCOL city, other than in the context of sports teams.

I've just never heard a good reason to pay $5k in rent, or sign a $1M mortgage note on a basic house or apartment, when there are other ways to live that don't involve being so financially over-leveraged. For the money I save by not living in such places, I could fly out to such places several times a year, experience whichever amenities people are excited about in each place, and leave the ongoing costs to the locals.

Honestly though, this whole back-and-forth comes back to people rationalizing why their decisions were the "correct" ones. No one wants to tell their life story in a manner in which they fucked up an important decision, so of course everyone who lives in a HCOL place has a whole host of very compelling reasons why it's worth it, and everyone in a LCOL area has their own very compelling reasons why their decision was the correct path to follow. That's just how humans work.

I'll buy this argument. There's no way to what-if one's life choices and decide one would have been happier in Nebraska instead of Connecticut, so we might as well defend our egos. The people with crushing housing costs and $6/gallon gasoline for their hour-long commutes have a lot of tangible reasons to be less satisfied than the person with a three-figure mortgage and a 15 minute drive to anything they need, but could they possibly admit this to others who made the opposite choice?

I'll admit my life choices were incorrect! If I could go back a few years knowing what I know today about housing prices, I would DEFINITELY move to a HCOL area and leverage myself to the hilt on rental/Airbnb properties while working my butt off, sleeping on somebody's floor, and eating ramen to cover the negative cash flow. I'd do that now if I was sure RE values would continue to multiply, but I'm not sure. Similarly if I knew the stock market would go up each of the next three years it would only make sense to leverage everything and buy on margin. But we don't get to know the future, trends eventually end, and taking on wild leverage is not a reliable plan.

@ChpBstrd in particular though - you still haven't acknowledged that there's far more to culture than cultural institutions. Culture is made up of people, their values, their social mores. ... People want to be with their people, and they're willing to pay good money for that.

Sometimes people argue that HCOL cities are great for their diversity, and then flip to arguing that they live there to avoid having to live around people from another tribe. It's an interesting angle on segregation.

Many starving artists of NYC have higher status than comfortably middle class artists in cheaper cities with mediocre art scenes, within their particular art scene. Are these people insane idiots for living in NYC "just for status"? Or are they people who care deeply about doing good work, making great art? Maybe expensive rent is a cost worth paying just to be a part of something that's beautiful at a world-class kind of level. Certainly their contributions to great art confer status, and it's naive to say that's not a motivating factor at all. But it's also utterly wrong to say that they're motivated only by status, when they're obviously also driven by a desire to make something meaningful, and be a part of an amazing community.

One could equally argue that an artist who chooses a LCOL city is taking advantage of being in a cheaper housing market and less competitive arts scene in order to reap more economic reward for mediocre work. That they're the one that's engaged in shallow status-seeking, because they care more about the ego boost of being a big fish in a small pond and signaling middle class respectability. That they care too much about the material comforts of a house and a nice car. Obviously though, there's a lot of value and beauty in a smaller community having its own local art and artists. That's admirable work too, but I'm just saying the perspective can be taken that either one of these life choices is a virtuous sacrifice, or that either one of these life choices is vapid status-seeking.

The assumption here is there's a tradeoff for artists. They can either make great art at a "world-class level" or live somewhere where they can support themselves. If they live somewhere affordable, the quality of their art will necessarily suffer. More importantly, the person will not be able to live their life as they prefer, which is as an artist, because the prices are too low.

Of course, when I say it out loud, the assumption is obviously faulty. LCOL areas are full of talented artists and musicians making a living for themselves - some starving and some not. Georgia O'Keeffe had to escape New York City and live in an utter desert to make her most iconic works.

I could talk a lot about how "world-class" art is more a function of being connected to wealthy buyers than any technical attribute, but we all know these things, right?

None of this matters if an artist's goal is simply to make art. If the goal is to break into a "scene" and obtain social status there, then yes, such a person will have to move to a "scene".

EVERYONE engages in status-signaling to their tribe(s) of choice. The HCOL starving artist gets more status from their peers in the artistic community, the LCOL middle-class artist maybe signals more status to their neighbors and their family who don't "get" the arts world. The HCOL Yuppie with an SUV and designer clothes signals spendy-pants normie status, while you, through your LCOL evangelism, are just putting out a sort of Mustachian purity-test status signal.

Can't win can I? Perhaps I could offset the perception of Mustachian status-signaling by noting that my budget is an absolute bonfire of waste, but then I would open myself up to accusations of bragging about how much I spent. Perhaps the only people we can be sure are not status signaling are the artists in LCOL areas laboring away on their creative pursuits, not for money or the respect of the connoisseurs, but because they want to make art. I know several artists like that, some of whom made it a full-time profession.

[Villanelle]

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it. 

I'm coming across as bragging about not living near the beach? I'm bragging about living in a cheap house in a less-popular place? That would certainly be a new way of being condescending - bragging about what one doesn't have! Re-read the definition... slowly. In the meantime maybe I'll gloat about the holes in my socks. :)

The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever... So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city.

Now this is fascinating. You did not visit lots of different zoos or theaters to determine which ones are your favorites, but because they are not in HCOL areas you can assume they are lower "quality". This opens up new possibilities to explain the disconnect. I've talked to lots of people from HCOL areas and have noted that they tend to travel only to other HCOL areas, and generally see flyover country as a place where there's nothing good. In other words, maybe the HCOL residents are paying $1.4M for a basic house because they have an inaccurate view of their alternatives. I.e. they assume they would be miserable in Kansas City because the theater actors would have high school level talent, because there are no walkable neighborhoods, because there are no local businesses, because everyone is a red-hatter, because the zoo probably looks like an animal shelter, because all the people think the same, etc... I've ignored these tropes and stereotypes up until now, but as they've piled up the theme is becoming unavoidable. Maybe it's the tropes and stereotypes that are persuading HCOL area residents to pay outrageous costs to live where they live?

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights. 

I never said social status is about bragging. People who live in their city's most expensive neighborhoods or who drive luxury brand cars don't walk down the sidewalk bragging "did you know I drive a BMW?" or "hey, Zillow says my house is worth $2M!". They quietly buy the status they buy and everyone can see it.

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.

I live where I live because of inertia, satisfaction, and because there's no reason to go elsewhere. I've traveled all over the US, lived several different ways, discovered all sorts of interesting things and found some lifestyles I wouldn't appreciate. I discovered that I could choose to live where amenity or benefit X is more convenient or plentiful, but that it would cost me $$$ while depriving me of something else. I don't think I live in an outstanding place, but the tradeoffs are as satisfactory as anywhere else.

The HCOL places I've examined very closely, including on the ground, are not places where I can imagine owning a home, having kids, putting a kid through college, and having a travel/recreation budget while saving for an early retirement. The mystery is why people in HCOL areas who say they wish these things were even possible don't take the deal that is right in front of them. 

Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you? 

Interesting question. I do live in a place in the US with a better-than-average ratio of earnings to cost of living. Indianapolis and Kansas City are slightly better according to the statistics, but the stats can jump around and it's not a big enough difference to persuade me to move. The absolute cheapest way to live in the US would be very different from my lifestyle or from the experience of living in one of these major cities. Is this bragging? It sure doesn't feel like bragging. I don't think I've heard anyone brag about their LCOL city, other than in the context of sports teams.

I've just never heard a good reason to pay $5k in rent, or sign a $1M mortgage note on a basic house or apartment, when there are other ways to live that don't involve being so financially over-leveraged. For the money I save by not living in such places, I could fly out to such places several times a year, experience whichever amenities people are excited about in each place, and leave the ongoing costs to the locals.

Honestly though, this whole back-and-forth comes back to people rationalizing why their decisions were the "correct" ones. No one wants to tell their life story in a manner in which they fucked up an important decision, so of course everyone who lives in a HCOL place has a whole host of very compelling reasons why it's worth it, and everyone in a LCOL area has their own very compelling reasons why their decision was the correct path to follow. That's just how humans work.

I'll buy this argument. There's no way to what-if one's life choices and decide one would have been happier in Nebraska instead of Connecticut, so we might as well defend our egos. The people with crushing housing costs and $6/gallon gasoline for their hour-long commutes have a lot of tangible reasons to be less satisfied than the person with a three-figure mortgage and a 15 minute drive to anything they need, but could they possibly admit this to others who made the opposite choice?

I'll admit my life choices were incorrect! If I could go back a few years knowing what I know today about housing prices, I would DEFINITELY move to a HCOL area and leverage myself to the hilt on rental/Airbnb properties while working my butt off, sleeping on somebody's floor, and eating ramen to cover the negative cash flow. I'd do that now if I was sure RE values would continue to multiply, but I'm not sure. Similarly if I knew the stock market would go up each of the next three years it would only make sense to leverage everything and buy on margin. But we don't get to know the future, trends eventually end, and taking on wild leverage is not a reliable plan.

@ChpBstrd in particular though - you still haven't acknowledged that there's far more to culture than cultural institutions. Culture is made up of people, their values, their social mores. ... People want to be with their people, and they're willing to pay good money for that.

Sometimes people argue that HCOL cities are great for their diversity, and then flip to arguing that they live there to avoid having to live around people from another tribe. It's an interesting angle on segregation.

Many starving artists of NYC have higher status than comfortably middle class artists in cheaper cities with mediocre art scenes, within their particular art scene. Are these people insane idiots for living in NYC "just for status"? Or are they people who care deeply about doing good work, making great art? Maybe expensive rent is a cost worth paying just to be a part of something that's beautiful at a world-class kind of level. Certainly their contributions to great art confer status, and it's naive to say that's not a motivating factor at all. But it's also utterly wrong to say that they're motivated only by status, when they're obviously also driven by a desire to make something meaningful, and be a part of an amazing community.

One could equally argue that an artist who chooses a LCOL city is taking advantage of being in a cheaper housing market and less competitive arts scene in order to reap more economic reward for mediocre work. That they're the one that's engaged in shallow status-seeking, because they care more about the ego boost of being a big fish in a small pond and signaling middle class respectability. That they care too much about the material comforts of a house and a nice car. Obviously though, there's a lot of value and beauty in a smaller community having its own local art and artists. That's admirable work too, but I'm just saying the perspective can be taken that either one of these life choices is a virtuous sacrifice, or that either one of these life choices is vapid status-seeking.

The assumption here is there's a tradeoff for artists. They can either make great art at a "world-class level" or live somewhere where they can support themselves. If they live somewhere affordable, the quality of their art will necessarily suffer. More importantly, the person will not be able to live their life as they prefer, which is as an artist, because the prices are too low.

Of course, when I say it out loud, the assumption is obviously faulty. LCOL areas are full of talented artists and musicians making a living for themselves - some starving and some not. Georgia O'Keeffe had to escape New York City and live in an utter desert to make her most iconic works.

I could talk a lot about how "world-class" art is more a function of being connected to wealthy buyers than any technical attribute, but we all know these things, right?

None of this matters if an artist's goal is simply to make art. If the goal is to break into a "scene" and obtain social status there, then yes, such a person will have to move to a "scene".

EVERYONE engages in status-signaling to their tribe(s) of choice. The HCOL starving artist gets more status from their peers in the artistic community, the LCOL middle-class artist maybe signals more status to their neighbors and their family who don't "get" the arts world. The HCOL Yuppie with an SUV and designer clothes signals spendy-pants normie status, while you, through your LCOL evangelism, are just putting out a sort of Mustachian purity-test status signal.

Can't win can I? Perhaps I could offset the perception of Mustachian status-signaling by noting that my budget is an absolute bonfire of waste, but then I would open myself up to accusations of bragging about how much I spent. Perhaps the only people we can be sure are not status signaling are the artists in LCOL areas laboring away on their creative pursuits, not for money or the respect of the connoisseurs, but because they want to make art. I know several artists like that, some of whom made it a full-time profession.

Yes.  Yes you are.  "I have deeper values than the people who live in expensive places because they just want to brag about them.  Unlike those assholes, I am a critical thinker who values things other than status and bragging rights."  You aren't bragging about not living by the beach, you are bragging about being someone not sucked in by the false narrative that maybe some things in HCOLAs actually are a better fit for them personally.  Unlike those poor rubes who are only motivated by status, and maybe by some misguided ignorance that makes them believe, falsely, that those expensive cities have nothing to offer that isn't available in a cheaper place.

Maybe you can't win because you are wrong and your point is silly and absolutely innaccurate.

Also, no one has said that no one who lives in a HCOLA status signals.  But many of us have repeatedly said that while that may be an attractive feature for some people, for many others it doesn't matter. And of the subset for whom it is an actual benefit, many of them like didn't use that to actually make the decision; it was just a happy accident.

[Villanelle]

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it. 

I'm coming across as bragging about not living near the beach? I'm bragging about living in a cheap house in a less-popular place? That would certainly be a new way of being condescending - bragging about what one doesn't have! Re-read the definition... slowly. In the meantime maybe I'll gloat about the holes in my socks. :)

The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever... So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city.

Now this is fascinating. You did not visit lots of different zoos or theaters to determine which ones are your favorites, but because they are not in HCOL areas you can assume they are lower "quality". This opens up new possibilities to explain the disconnect. I've talked to lots of people from HCOL areas and have noted that they tend to travel only to other HCOL areas, and generally see flyover country as a place where there's nothing good. In other words, maybe the HCOL residents are paying $1.4M for a basic house because they have an inaccurate view of their alternatives. I.e. they assume they would be miserable in Kansas City because the theater actors would have high school level talent, because there are no walkable neighborhoods, because there are no local businesses, because everyone is a red-hatter, because the zoo probably looks like an animal shelter, because all the people think the same, etc... I've ignored these tropes and stereotypes up until now, but as they've piled up the theme is becoming unavoidable. Maybe it's the tropes and stereotypes that are persuading HCOL area residents to pay outrageous costs to live where they live?

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights. 

I never said social status is about bragging. People who live in their city's most expensive neighborhoods or who drive luxury brand cars don't walk down the sidewalk bragging "did you know I drive a BMW?" or "hey, Zillow says my house is worth $2M!". They quietly buy the status they buy and everyone can see it.

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.

I live where I live because of inertia, satisfaction, and because there's no reason to go elsewhere. I've traveled all over the US, lived several different ways, discovered all sorts of interesting things and found some lifestyles I wouldn't appreciate. I discovered that I could choose to live where amenity or benefit X is more convenient or plentiful, but that it would cost me $$$ while depriving me of something else. I don't think I live in an outstanding place, but the tradeoffs are as satisfactory as anywhere else.

The HCOL places I've examined very closely, including on the ground, are not places where I can imagine owning a home, having kids, putting a kid through college, and having a travel/recreation budget while saving for an early retirement. The mystery is why people in HCOL areas who say they wish these things were even possible don't take the deal that is right in front of them. 

Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you? 

Interesting question. I do live in a place in the US with a better-than-average ratio of earnings to cost of living. Indianapolis and Kansas City are slightly better according to the statistics, but the stats can jump around and it's not a big enough difference to persuade me to move. The absolute cheapest way to live in the US would be very different from my lifestyle or from the experience of living in one of these major cities. Is this bragging? It sure doesn't feel like bragging. I don't think I've heard anyone brag about their LCOL city, other than in the context of sports teams.

I've just never heard a good reason to pay $5k in rent, or sign a $1M mortgage note on a basic house or apartment, when there are other ways to live that don't involve being so financially over-leveraged. For the money I save by not living in such places, I could fly out to such places several times a year, experience whichever amenities people are excited about in each place, and leave the ongoing costs to the locals.

Honestly though, this whole back-and-forth comes back to people rationalizing why their decisions were the "correct" ones. No one wants to tell their life story in a manner in which they fucked up an important decision, so of course everyone who lives in a HCOL place has a whole host of very compelling reasons why it's worth it, and everyone in a LCOL area has their own very compelling reasons why their decision was the correct path to follow. That's just how humans work.

I'll buy this argument. There's no way to what-if one's life choices and decide one would have been happier in Nebraska instead of Connecticut, so we might as well defend our egos. The people with crushing housing costs and $6/gallon gasoline for their hour-long commutes have a lot of tangible reasons to be less satisfied than the person with a three-figure mortgage and a 15 minute drive to anything they need, but could they possibly admit this to others who made the opposite choice?

I'll admit my life choices were incorrect! If I could go back a few years knowing what I know today about housing prices, I would DEFINITELY move to a HCOL area and leverage myself to the hilt on rental/Airbnb properties while working my butt off, sleeping on somebody's floor, and eating ramen to cover the negative cash flow. I'd do that now if I was sure RE values would continue to multiply, but I'm not sure. Similarly if I knew the stock market would go up each of the next three years it would only make sense to leverage everything and buy on margin. But we don't get to know the future, trends eventually end, and taking on wild leverage is not a reliable plan.

@ChpBstrd in particular though - you still haven't acknowledged that there's far more to culture than cultural institutions. Culture is made up of people, their values, their social mores. ... People want to be with their people, and they're willing to pay good money for that.

Sometimes people argue that HCOL cities are great for their diversity, and then flip to arguing that they live there to avoid having to live around people from another tribe. It's an interesting angle on segregation.

Many starving artists of NYC have higher status than comfortably middle class artists in cheaper cities with mediocre art scenes, within their particular art scene. Are these people insane idiots for living in NYC "just for status"? Or are they people who care deeply about doing good work, making great art? Maybe expensive rent is a cost worth paying just to be a part of something that's beautiful at a world-class kind of level. Certainly their contributions to great art confer status, and it's naive to say that's not a motivating factor at all. But it's also utterly wrong to say that they're motivated only by status, when they're obviously also driven by a desire to make something meaningful, and be a part of an amazing community.

One could equally argue that an artist who chooses a LCOL city is taking advantage of being in a cheaper housing market and less competitive arts scene in order to reap more economic reward for mediocre work. That they're the one that's engaged in shallow status-seeking, because they care more about the ego boost of being a big fish in a small pond and signaling middle class respectability. That they care too much about the material comforts of a house and a nice car. Obviously though, there's a lot of value and beauty in a smaller community having its own local art and artists. That's admirable work too, but I'm just saying the perspective can be taken that either one of these life choices is a virtuous sacrifice, or that either one of these life choices is vapid status-seeking.

The assumption here is there's a tradeoff for artists. They can either make great art at a "world-class level" or live somewhere where they can support themselves. If they live somewhere affordable, the quality of their art will necessarily suffer. More importantly, the person will not be able to live their life as they prefer, which is as an artist, because the prices are too low.

Of course, when I say it out loud, the assumption is obviously faulty. LCOL areas are full of talented artists and musicians making a living for themselves - some starving and some not. Georgia O'Keeffe had to escape New York City and live in an utter desert to make her most iconic works.

I could talk a lot about how "world-class" art is more a function of being connected to wealthy buyers than any technical attribute, but we all know these things, right?

None of this matters if an artist's goal is simply to make art. If the goal is to break into a "scene" and obtain social status there, then yes, such a person will have to move to a "scene".

EVERYONE engages in status-signaling to their tribe(s) of choice. The HCOL starving artist gets more status from their peers in the artistic community, the LCOL middle-class artist maybe signals more status to their neighbors and their family who don't "get" the arts world. The HCOL Yuppie with an SUV and designer clothes signals spendy-pants normie status, while you, through your LCOL evangelism, are just putting out a sort of Mustachian purity-test status signal.

Can't win can I? Perhaps I could offset the perception of Mustachian status-signaling by noting that my budget is an absolute bonfire of waste, but then I would open myself up to accusations of bragging about how much I spent. Perhaps the only people we can be sure are not status signaling are the artists in LCOL areas laboring away on their creative pursuits, not for money or the respect of the connoisseurs, but because they want to make art. I know several artists like that, some of whom made it a full-time profession.

Yes.  Yes you are.  "I have deeper values than the people who live in expensive places because they just want to brag about them.  Unlike those assholes, I am a critical thinker who values things other than status and bragging rights."  You aren't bragging about not living by the beach, you are bragging about being someone not sucked in by the false narrative that maybe some things in HCOLAs actually are a better fit for them personally.  Unlike those poor rubes who are only motivated by status, and maybe by some misguided ignorance that makes them believe, falsely, that those expensive cities have nothing to offer that isn't available in a cheaper place.

Maybe you can't win because you are wrong and your point is silly and absolutely innaccurate.

Also, no one has said that no one who lives in a HCOLA status signals.  But many of us have repeatedly said that while that may be an attractive feature for some people, for many others it doesn't matter. And of the subset for whom it is an actual benefit, many of them like didn't use that to actually make the decision; it was just a happy accident.

And the more you dig in on that point, the more convinced I am that you like bragging that you live in a cheap city and therefore you assume that other peoples' reasoning for choosing where they live must be similar.  Qouting the dictionary in an argument is usually Ick, but since you did it, let's go with that.

a person who claims to be an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

You are being incredibly condescending by claiming that people who live in HCOLA do so simply so they can brag about it. 

I'm coming across as bragging about not living near the beach? I'm bragging about living in a cheap house in a less-popular place? That would certainly be a new way of being condescending - bragging about what one doesn't have! Re-read the definition... slowly. In the meantime maybe I'll gloat about the holes in my socks. :)

The San Diego Zoo is one of my favorite places ever... So no, the Louisville of Kansas City zoo wouldn't be equal replacement.  Is there theater in those places, sure?  Are there as many options with quality productions?  I find it unlikely, just based on the size of the city.

Now this is fascinating. You did not visit lots of different zoos or theaters to determine which ones are your favorites, but because they are not in HCOL areas you can assume they are lower "quality". This opens up new possibilities to explain the disconnect. I've talked to lots of people from HCOL areas and have noted that they tend to travel only to other HCOL areas, and generally see flyover country as a place where there's nothing good. In other words, maybe the HCOL residents are paying $1.4M for a basic house because they have an inaccurate view of their alternatives. I.e. they assume they would be miserable in Kansas City because the theater actors would have high school level talent, because there are no walkable neighborhoods, because there are no local businesses, because everyone is a red-hatter, because the zoo probably looks like an animal shelter, because all the people think the same, etc... I've ignored these tropes and stereotypes up until now, but as they've piled up the theme is becoming unavoidable. Maybe it's the tropes and stereotypes that are persuading HCOL area residents to pay outrageous costs to live where they live?

You admire you aren't an "expert or connoisseur" (which you put in quotes, though I didn't say that phrase), and yet you are perfectly willing to boil down the motivation of anyone who lives in or wants to live in an expensive place as vain bragging rights. 

I never said social status is about bragging. People who live in their city's most expensive neighborhoods or who drive luxury brand cars don't walk down the sidewalk bragging "did you know I drive a BMW?" or "hey, Zillow says my house is worth $2M!". They quietly buy the status they buy and everyone can see it.

To look at this another way... why do you live where you live?  Is COL the only factor?  Assuming it isn't, that means you see that different places have different offerings.  Those offerings are what cause people to choose where they live, H or L cost.

I live where I live because of inertia, satisfaction, and because there's no reason to go elsewhere. I've traveled all over the US, lived several different ways, discovered all sorts of interesting things and found some lifestyles I wouldn't appreciate. I discovered that I could choose to live where amenity or benefit X is more convenient or plentiful, but that it would cost me $$$ while depriving me of something else. I don't think I live in an outstanding place, but the tradeoffs are as satisfactory as anywhere else.

The HCOL places I've examined very closely, including on the ground, are not places where I can imagine owning a home, having kids, putting a kid through college, and having a travel/recreation budget while saving for an early retirement. The mystery is why people in HCOL areas who say they wish these things were even possible don't take the deal that is right in front of them. 

Put differently, why don't you live in the cheapest town in the US?  Is it because you like bragging that you live in a more expensive area?  Or is it maybe because there are things your location offers you that you couldn't find in those areas?  So why can't you accept that the same logic applies to other people who ultimately landed on a higher cost city than you? 

Interesting question. I do live in a place in the US with a better-than-average ratio of earnings to cost of living. Indianapolis and Kansas City are slightly better according to the statistics, but the stats can jump around and it's not a big enough difference to persuade me to move. The absolute cheapest way to live in the US would be very different from my lifestyle or from the experience of living in one of these major cities. Is this bragging? It sure doesn't feel like bragging. I don't think I've heard anyone brag about their LCOL city, other than in the context of sports teams.

I've just never heard a good reason to pay $5k in rent, or sign a $1M mortgage note on a basic house or apartment, when there are other ways to live that don't involve being so financially over-leveraged. For the money I save by not living in such places, I could fly out to such places several times a year, experience whichever amenities people are excited about in each place, and leave the ongoing costs to the locals.

Honestly though, this whole back-and-forth comes back to people rationalizing why their decisions were the "correct" ones. No one wants to tell their life story in a manner in which they fucked up an important decision, so of course everyone who lives in a HCOL place has a whole host of very compelling reasons why it's worth it, and everyone in a LCOL area has their own very compelling reasons why their decision was the correct path to follow. That's just how humans work.

I'll buy this argument. There's no way to what-if one's life choices and decide one would have been happier in Nebraska instead of Connecticut, so we might as well defend our egos. The people with crushing housing costs and $6/gallon gasoline for their hour-long commutes have a lot of tangible reasons to be less satisfied than the person with a three-figure mortgage and a 15 minute drive to anything they need, but could they possibly admit this to others who made the opposite choice?

I'll admit my life choices were incorrect! If I could go back a few years knowing what I know today about housing prices, I would DEFINITELY move to a HCOL area and leverage myself to the hilt on rental/Airbnb properties while working my butt off, sleeping on somebody's floor, and eating ramen to cover the negative cash flow. I'd do that now if I was sure RE values would continue to multiply, but I'm not sure. Similarly if I knew the stock market would go up each of the next three years it would only make sense to leverage everything and buy on margin. But we don't get to know the future, trends eventually end, and taking on wild leverage is not a reliable plan.

@ChpBstrd in particular though - you still haven't acknowledged that there's far more to culture than cultural institutions. Culture is made up of people, their values, their social mores. ... People want to be with their people, and they're willing to pay good money for that.

Sometimes people argue that HCOL cities are great for their diversity, and then flip to arguing that they live there to avoid having to live around people from another tribe. It's an interesting angle on segregation.

Many starving artists of NYC have higher status than comfortably middle class artists in cheaper cities with mediocre art scenes, within their particular art scene. Are these people insane idiots for living in NYC "just for status"? Or are they people who care deeply about doing good work, making great art? Maybe expensive rent is a cost worth paying just to be a part of something that's beautiful at a world-class kind of level. Certainly their contributions to great art confer status, and it's naive to say that's not a motivating factor at all. But it's also utterly wrong to say that they're motivated only by status, when they're obviously also driven by a desire to make something meaningful, and be a part of an amazing community.

One could equally argue that an artist who chooses a LCOL city is taking advantage of being in a cheaper housing market and less competitive arts scene in order to reap more economic reward for mediocre work. That they're the one that's engaged in shallow status-seeking, because they care more about the ego boost of being a big fish in a small pond and signaling middle class respectability. That they care too much about the material comforts of a house and a nice car. Obviously though, there's a lot of value and beauty in a smaller community having its own local art and artists. That's admirable work too, but I'm just saying the perspective can be taken that either one of these life choices is a virtuous sacrifice, or that either one of these life choices is vapid status-seeking.

The assumption here is there's a tradeoff for artists. They can either make great art at a "world-class level" or live somewhere where they can support themselves. If they live somewhere affordable, the quality of their art will necessarily suffer. More importantly, the person will not be able to live their life as they prefer, which is as an artist, because the prices are too low.

Of course, when I say it out loud, the assumption is obviously faulty. LCOL areas are full of talented artists and musicians making a living for themselves - some starving and some not. Georgia O'Keeffe had to escape New York City and live in an utter desert to make her most iconic works.

I could talk a lot about how "world-class" art is more a function of being connected to wealthy buyers than any technical attribute, but we all know these things, right?

None of this matters if an artist's goal is simply to make art. If the goal is to break into a "scene" and obtain social status there, then yes, such a person will have to move to a "scene".

EVERYONE engages in status-signaling to their tribe(s) of choice. The HCOL starving artist gets more status from their peers in the artistic community, the LCOL middle-class artist maybe signals more status to their neighbors and their family who don't "get" the arts world. The HCOL Yuppie with an SUV and designer clothes signals spendy-pants normie status, while you, through your LCOL evangelism, are just putting out a sort of Mustachian purity-test status signal.

Can't win can I? Perhaps I could offset the perception of Mustachian status-signaling by noting that my budget is an absolute bonfire of waste, but then I would open myself up to accusations of bragging about how much I spent. Perhaps the only people we can be sure are not status signaling are the artists in LCOL areas laboring away on their creative pursuits, not for money or the respect of the connoisseurs, but because they want to make art. I know several artists like that, some of whom made it a full-time profession.

That's not AT ALL what I said.  I have been to many zoos**.  It's something I like to do when I travel, plus I've lived many places.  You made that assumption, even though I said nothing that suggests the SD Zoo is the only one I've ever been to, likely because it fits your [condescending] narrative that anyone who thinks HCOL areas are better is simply ignorant and unwilling to consider that other areas might offer value.

I've also been to theatre productions in many cities.  So yeah, I've checked out other options there too.  I'm not some ignorant snob who just assumed that my zoo (god, this is asinine) and my theater are best because the city I live in is expensive and those flyover states can't possibly top them.  I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN A LOT OF PLACES AND EXPERIENCED THESE THINGS AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I LIKE SPECIFIC ONES THE BEST.  You ASSumed that I just made that decision based on perceived value of what an expensive city offers, solely because it's expensive. 

**St. Louis, DC, Tokyo, Orange County, Denver, Pittsburg...  If you need my zoo bona fides, that's a sampling, but far from comprehensive. lol

[RetiredAt63]

As an aside, I do go to zoos when I travel, and the San Diego Zoo is on my bucket list.  It is known as a world class zoo.  As is the Toronto Zoo, which I have been to several times.  Both are known for breeding programs for species that are endangered in the wild. 

As another aside, I used to live in a small town in farming country.  Our town had lots of activities, but local groups organized to rent a bus and buy season tickets to various city theatres because the local theatre offerings were minimal.  You have to be dedicated to go to see a play in a city when you know you will get home at midnight in the middle of winter.  When I moved to Ottawa it was lovely to check out was was at the National Arts Centre and take the bus down and a taxi home whenever I wanted to see something, or just drive to the Ottawa Little Theatre when there was a play on I wanted to see, or go to the CentrePointe Theatre when they had something interesting on.

Now I am living in a HCOL area, because that gets me close to family.  But it is a  HCOL area because it is just within commuting distance to Toronto.  I'm back to thinking of staying in a hotel overnight if I go to an evening performance in Toronto, or finding a matinee.  Of course with Covid lingering I am not going to the theatre or concerts much at all, but eventually.

So the point is, cities give choices, because they have the population density to support lots of activities.  So people want to live there, because they have more choices.  And more people wanting to live there means prices will be higher.  And as someone who as lived in suburbs, in rural areas, and in cities, I think city living is easy - the maintenance of daily life is less time consuming.  And rural living may be cheap, but when your well pump dies on a holiday weekend you learn about high one-time costs.

[Malossi792]

This discussion is just getting more and more entertaining :)

[jeroly]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Have you heard of mortgages?

Yes. Your point? Maybe you haven't heard of buying stocks on margin.  Both are leveraged bets that can enhance your return... or completely wipe out your investment.

[Scandium]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Have you heard of mortgages?

Yes. Your point? Maybe you haven't heard of buying stocks on margin.  Both are leveraged bets that can enhance your return... or completely wipe out your investment.

Yes that's totally equivalent risk levels. That's why as we all know the equity requirements and interest rates on mortgages and margin loans are exactly the same..

[EscapeVelocity2020]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Have you heard of mortgages?

Yes. Your point? Maybe you haven't heard of buying stocks on margin.  Both are leveraged bets that can enhance your return... or completely wipe out your investment.

Yes that's totally equivalent risk levels. That's why as we all know the equity requirements and interest rates on mortgages and margin loans are exactly the same..

And then there's that weird thing about actually being able to live in house and whatnot.  I mean, ultimately VTI is worthless if you never buy anything and die with a huge number on a spreadsheet.

[wageslave23]

We are also ignoring that spending money on a nice house in a desirable area has rarely been the worst financial move. I stayed in an Airbnb in LA recently and checked zillow. The owners had bought it for $600k 10 years ago. How stupid! They could have lived in AR instead! ....
It's worth $1.4 Mill now.

The same investment in VTI would've yielded $1.8 million.

Have you heard of mortgages?

Yes. Your point? Maybe you haven't heard of buying stocks on margin.  Both are leveraged bets that can enhance your return... or completely wipe out your investment.

Why do I think you don't buy stocks on margin? For sure not $600k worth with 20% collateral.

[Log]

So the point is, cities give choices, because they have the population density to support lots of activities.  So people want to live there, because they have more choices.  And more people wanting to live there means prices will be higher.  And as someone who as lived in suburbs, in rural areas, and in cities, I think city living is easy - the maintenance of daily life is less time consuming.  And rural living may be cheap, but when your well pump dies on a holiday weekend you learn about high one-time costs.

"Maintenance of daily life" is such a perfect encapsulation of the benefits of city life. So many of the daily/weekly concerns of traffic and commutes and home maintenance and emergency repairs are optional.

Home ownership vs renting is so often depicted as a purely financial calculation. You know what's fucking amazing about renting? As a renter, maintaining and repairing a building (basically the most burdensome, cumbersome physical thing a person can possibly own) is not your problem. Emergency repair needed when you're in the middle of dealing with your own shit with work/family/whatever? Call the landlord and then go about your business. Buying might save you money in some markets, but renting will always buy you convenience and time.

Car ownership is a smaller version of the same thing. Walking/biking/transiting, you never have to worry about being delayed by traffic, you never have to worry about adding an extra few minutes to your commute to stop for gas, your to-do list is freed from routine car maintenance, and you never have an emergency car repair need come up at on inopportune time. Vehicle maintenance is outsourced to your local transit agency. Bike maintenance is comparatively easy and cheap. Maybe you spend a little more money on good walking shoes. And you save time not needing to "exercise" because your day-to-day life is already active, as it should be.

Tangential rant related to people rejecting cities because they "love nature": The city naturally arises from humans, just as the beehive naturally arises from bees, the dam naturally arises from beavers, or the coral reef arises from coral. We may change our environment, but that's not in opposition to nature. Humans banding together in tight proximity in order to cooperate and keep each other safe is just what we do. It's this romanticized fantasy of semi-rural individualism that's really going against the nature of humanity, while also destroying other eco-systems by spreading humans inefficiently across more land and consuming more energy. A city is an amazing eco-system.

[Metalcat]

^Also, I'm currently in my city residence and there's as much opportunity to get out in nature here as there is at my rural residence. Granted, this is an extremely green city, I understand that's not always the case, but it also makes the point that it's hard to generalize about urban vs rural because many cities and rural communities are wildly different from one another. 

I am fascinated by this romanticism of hiding out alone in a massive acreage that seems to be a particularly American thing. It seems to align with what I've been told in other threads about the theme of Americans wanting to avoid each other.

Which is funny, because I personally specifically sought out a rural home for the community. Of course that brings me back to the point that different rural communities are different. I love the one I chose, but there are plenty I wouldn't want to move to.

[mm1970]

I live where I live because of inertia, satisfaction, and because there's no reason to go elsewhere. I've traveled all over the US, lived several different ways, discovered all sorts of interesting things and found some lifestyles I wouldn't appreciate. I discovered that I could choose to live where amenity or benefit X is more convenient or plentiful, but that it would cost me $$$ while depriving me of something else. I don't think I live in an outstanding place, but the tradeoffs are as satisfactory as anywhere else.

It's really not that different for people who live in HCOL areas.  I live in Santa Barbara, for fuck's sake.  I don't live here to brag about it.  We live here because DH went to grad school here and we just never left.  By the time he finished grad school, I was well ensconced in my job.  We've both changed jobs over the years, but never at the same time.  We own a small house, we have 2 kids, and going somewhere different would be a massive change.

The weather, the produce, the politics, the beach are all great reasons to live here - I only go to the beach once/ month because I have a FT job and 2 kids.  But I walk or run outdoors in this great weather every single day.  Politically, nobody is regulating my uterus.  It's expensive as crap here, and rather than brag about it, I think that sucks because of all the people who are getting priced out.

[Villanelle]

My walks on the beach absolutely felt like being surrounded by nature.  And since I was doing them a 2pm on a Tuesday or 11a on a Wednesday, they were nearly empty.  Except the occasional herd of Navy SEALS running by as part of their workouts, and that was a natural phenomenon I didn't mind looking at, instead of sand and breaking waves, for a few minutes.

And the community!  I'm a pretty intense introvert, which troublesome social anxiety.  But that community is so nice and relatively small (making it less intimidating and anxious for me) and has a concentration of some many people we know, plus amazing community events like concerts in the park, that it's easy (or at least less difficult) for me to establish ties.  Once of my favorite days ever when we lived there was walking on the beach in the morning, then going to a small local cheese monger where I chatted with them and tried samples and they helped me build a perfect cheese and charcuterie board, then meeting friends for the concert in the park.  Chef's kiss perfection (though we did have to drive to the cheese monger). 

Fuck.  This thread really makes me want to move back to San Diego.  We've mostly ruled it out because it's so spendy (though I guess we could then brag about living in an expensive place, which isn't currently on our 'pros' list, when apparently it's supposed to be the only thing on that list), especially to be in the parts with walking access to beaches and walkable communities.  But I love that place so much.  Further inland, easy access to those things is gone and the mild weather becomes hotter.  The prices are slightly lower, but at the literal expense of all the great things.  If' I'm going to live in a suburb somewhere, I might as well be in a cheaper one. 

[ixtap]

My walks on the beach absolutely felt like being surrounded by nature.  And since I was doing them a 2pm on a Tuesday or 11a on a Wednesday, they were nearly empty.  Except the occasional herd of Navy SEALS running by as part of their workouts, and that was a natural phenomenon I didn't mind looking at, instead of sand and breaking waves, for a few minutes.

And the community!  I'm a pretty intense introvert, which troublesome social anxiety.  But that community is so nice and relatively small (making it less intimidating and anxious for me) and has a concentration of some many people we know, plus amazing community events like concerts in the park, that it's easy (or at least less difficult) for me to establish ties.  Once of my favorite days ever when we lived there was walking on the beach in the morning, then going to a small local cheese monger where I chatted with them and tried samples and they helped me build a perfect cheese and charcuterie board, then meeting friends for the concert in the park.  Chef's kiss perfection (though we did have to drive to the cheese monger). 

Fuck.  This thread really makes me want to move back to San Diego.  We've mostly ruled it out because it's so spendy (though I guess we could then brag about living in an expensive place, which isn't currently on our 'pros' list, when apparently it's supposed to be the only thing on that list), especially to be in the parts with walking access to beaches and walkable communities.  But I love that place so much.  Further inland, easy access to those things is gone and the mild weather becomes hotter.  The prices are slightly lower, but at the literal expense of all the great things.  If' I'm going to live in a suburb somewhere, I might as well be in a cheaper one.

Living on our boat allowed us to live in San Diego pretty reasonably. And we did love it and still go back most months. DH has been three times in the last month to help out a friend; I only went twice for volunteering. There are some friends we see more often now because we let them know when we visit vs the good old let months go by between hanging out that tends to happen.

But we are also loving our new location. We miss our social network, but not the traffic (unless we try to go through LA).

FTR, I am guilty of not going to the beach. It is too sunny and too sandy to just hang out there. I still use the boardwalks and walk and bike along the beach all the time. And I enjoy a quiet evening when I can here the waves breaking in the distance.

[Villanelle]

This thread too a weird turn.

 I recently moved out of "The OC" - coastal Orange County CA. It was actually cheaper to live there because I bought a small 1950s 1000 SF crappy old foreclosure/fixer house in a working class immigrant 'hood with cash during the bottom of the housing market down turn. Had low cost prop taxes, utiliies and insurance. I didn't live there because I wanted to say I lived in the very expensive, trendy, upscale OC, but because it was close to family, friends, BF and many of the activities I enjoy (and yes I went to the beach daily on my bike).

I personally don't like SoCal but stayed for the reasons I listed. Prices went up.a lot, but it didn't effect me or my lifestyle there. I sold during the pandemic and recently bought in a lower cost, but nicer, location not too far away. Now I live in a ski resort 4 season mountain/lake town but didn't move there for bragging rights. Moved there to tap my home equity and buy a less expensive place, and because I wanted to be near family, friends, and most of the activities I like.

Also, your OC zoo sucks.  I'm sure that was a factor.