Has FIRE become “spendy”?

[Fomerly known as something]

^^

“ Plans (RE) are useless, but planning (FI) is indispensable.”

Except that despite the calculators, FI isn't actually a concrete thing.

Someone is FI largely when they *feel* like they have enough money. The "X" of 25X may be based off of data, but it comes down to how much the person *feels* like spending for the quality of life that they *prefer* relative to what they've earned in a career they've chosen.

It's a whole lot of feelings and preferences that can't be easily captured by calculations. One person who prefers a VHCOL area might just like it there, another may not have a choice due to needing specialized medical care for their child with a rare condition.

Two people could spend 80K/yr and one have 30K+ in medical expenses while the other has 30K+ in golf memberships and golf-related travel.

What really matters is flexibility. Saving money up front is one very powerful lever for flexibility, but there are others, such as having a flexible spend, being geographically flexible, being able and willing to earn more money.

Flexibility means having some way to free up capital when it's needed for the bullshit life throws at you. The more flexibility someone has, the more resilience is built into their lives.

Planning in resiliencies is what's valuable, retiring is just a lifestyle choice.

As a concrete example.  I feel FI, but as part of it I do need to work until July 2025 when I’m pension and healthcare eligible.  Otherwise I’m really just financially well off at this point in my career.

Also the FIRE community really is pretty small.  I can’t recall the source, but less than 1% of people in the US retire before age 50, so those you are talking about who lean FIRE in there 30s are even more rare.

[TomTX]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring. This is one of the reasons "Rich, Broke or Dead" is my favorite FI calculator.

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

[BeanCounter]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

[MrGreen]

My takeaway from the last several pages of this thread is the 4% rule works just fine but some folks aren't comfortable with that and plan to be more conservative.

[mistymoney]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

condolences.

[Metalcat]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

My mom retired last year at 64, and just lost a fifth of her brain to a spontaneous bleed.

Of course, working until you die is either really cool or really tragic, and depends, yet again, on your *feelings* about work.

I intend to work until I die, but I love my work and I can do it on my own terms. My mom was exhausted and fed up and was so, so happy to retire. Just a few days before her massive brain bleed she was waxing poetic about how they had finally "made it."

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Has anyone done a poll on how many people on this forum have voluntarily retired in their 30's? Especially before 35. I'd have to imagine even on here it's a very low percentage. It would seem to be a pretty important point because retiring in your 30s/40s seems to be the discussion often, but I'm really curious how often the 30s part of that happens and especially early 30s.

[Metalcat]

Has anyone done a poll on how many people on this forum have voluntarily retired in their 30's? Especially before 35. I'd have to imagine even on here it's a very low percentage. It would seem to be a pretty important point because retiring in your 30s/40s seems to be the discussion often, but I'm really curious how often the 30s part of that happens and especially early 30s.

I think the majority aren't even here anymore.

[mistymoney]

Has anyone done a poll on how many people on this forum have voluntarily retired in their 30's? Especially before 35. I'd have to imagine even on here it's a very low percentage. It would seem to be a pretty important point because retiring in your 30s/40s seems to be the discussion often, but I'm really curious how often the 30s part of that happens and especially early 30s.

I think the majority aren't even here anymore.

haha! so we'll never know their secret regrets, if any!

[Log]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

My mom retired last year at 64, and just lost a fifth of her brain to a spontaneous bleed.

Of course, working until you die is either really cool or really tragic, and depends, yet again, on your *feelings* about work.

I intend to work until I die, but I love my work and I can do it on my own terms. My mom was exhausted and fed up and was so, so happy to retire. Just a few days before her massive brain bleed she was waxing poetic about how they had finally "made it."

That's a whole damn tragedy in one sentence. Condolences, for her and for you.

[Metalcat]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

My mom retired last year at 64, and just lost a fifth of her brain to a spontaneous bleed.

Of course, working until you die is either really cool or really tragic, and depends, yet again, on your *feelings* about work.

I intend to work until I die, but I love my work and I can do it on my own terms. My mom was exhausted and fed up and was so, so happy to retire. Just a few days before her massive brain bleed she was waxing poetic about how they had finally "made it."

That's a whole damn tragedy in one sentence. Condolences, for her and for you.

Oh shit, I should have clarified that she had a truly miraculous recovery that should not have been possible. She has some mild cognitive issues, but she's pretty happily retired now.

She should be dead, it's a complete freak of nature that she isn't dead, much less not severely brain damaged.

[Log]

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yea, a former co-worker hung on until he maxed out the pension. He died less than a year after retiring.

It happen more often than we realize. My own mother worked until she was fully pension eligible despite having $1M. She retired at 60, diagnosed with cancer at 63 and then spent the next 8 years battling that and then died at 71.

My mom retired last year at 64, and just lost a fifth of her brain to a spontaneous bleed.

Of course, working until you die is either really cool or really tragic, and depends, yet again, on your *feelings* about work.

I intend to work until I die, but I love my work and I can do it on my own terms. My mom was exhausted and fed up and was so, so happy to retire. Just a few days before her massive brain bleed she was waxing poetic about how they had finally "made it."

That's a whole damn tragedy in one sentence. Condolences, for her and for you.

Oh shit, I should have clarified that she had a truly miraculous recovery that should not have been possible. She has some mild cognitive issues, but she's pretty happily retired now.

She should be dead, it's a complete freak of nature that she isn't dead, much less not severely brain damaged.

Ah - I read your journal often so I should have remembered from there. I knew her recovery was better than expected but didn't recall (/or realize?) that it was that great - yay!

[mistymoney]

Just putting this out there, wondering how you all see this fitting into the discussion here?

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/11/29/how-to-retire-forever-on-a-fixed-chunk-of-money/

A chunk of money is a perfectly good retirement plan, and the math doesn’t care if you are retiring at 5 years old or 85. If you get the numbers right, you’re set for life.

[mistymoney]

Has anyone done a poll on how many people on this forum have voluntarily retired in their 30's? Especially before 35. I'd have to imagine even on here it's a very low percentage. It would seem to be a pretty important point because retiring in your 30s/40s seems to be the discussion often, but I'm really curious how often the 30s part of that happens and especially early 30s.

I think the majority aren't even here anymore.

haha! so we'll never know their secret regrets, if any!

You mean like the secret regret we didn't retire earlier :)?

true! it could go either way.....well never know!

[2sk22]

Just putting this out there, wondering how you all see this fitting into the discussion here?

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/11/29/how-to-retire-forever-on-a-fixed-chunk-of-money/

A chunk of money is a perfectly good retirement plan, and the math doesn’t care if you are retiring at 5 years old or 85. If you get the numbers right, you’re set for life.

That post was one of the inspirations for my decision to retire early but it doesn't really say much about retirement being speedy. Or am I missing something?

[mistymoney]

Just putting this out there, wondering how you all see this fitting into the discussion here?

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/11/29/how-to-retire-forever-on-a-fixed-chunk-of-money/

A chunk of money is a perfectly good retirement plan, and the math doesn’t care if you are retiring at 5 years old or 85. If you get the numbers right, you’re set for life.

That post was one of the inspirations for my decision to retire early but it doesn't really say much about retirement being speedy. Or am I missing something?

oh - the convo had drifted quite a it from the title at this point! this was in reference to many comments on save 25x, live on it forever, not being enough especially if retirement likely lasting more than 30 years. Here it says you are good if retiring at 5 years old.

Now in that case! I do think you might change your mind on how much you need for an annual spend. I think at 5 I would have been very focused on a weekly movie theater visit and a daily chocolate bar and very little else! Back in the day - there were no electronics to acquire....not even VHS tapes....weird to think on that.

Which brings to mind on the tech changes we have on the horizon.....likely everyone should budget in a future household robot....since 5 yo me didn't even know color tvs and netflix were going to be a thing.....And then maybe throw in a little extra for when we all have to have our house floatation devices, and anchoring tech to keep them on our below the water property lines......

[roomtempmayo]

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

I think it really depends on your career.  For some people, I can imagine that as long as you keep up your continuing ed credits and maintain your license, you can hop back into the workforce as necessary with minimal penalty.  I know some nurses and teachers who have done this when they had young kids at home, for example.

But in lots of professions, the door functionally only swings one way.  Once you're out, you're gone.  A partner in a large law firm who leaves the firm and doesn't work for five years will have very few options if they try to come back, and none of them are going to pay like the job they left.  Someone who wound down or sold a successful business might be another example - it would be a very long and uncertain path to recover their previous success.

Whether your work is more like a nurse or more like a partner in a law firm would reasonably influence your willingness to try out retirement and rethink things.

However, at least in the US, inequality between the bottom and middle of the income scale has declined significantly over the past three years, and so maybe the hypothetical crash-and-burn outcomes aren't as bad as they used to be.  For example, I'm watching a guy mow the lawn outside right now.  We're begging for people to work in facilities, and the last I heard they were starting at $24/hr with full benefits for anyone working over 30/hr week.  That's more or less a living wage here, to ride a mower and tend garden beds.  If that's functionally the safety net now, maybe the risk of potentially wanting to reenter the workforce isn't so great.

[Metalcat]

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

I think it really depends on your career.  For some people, I can imagine that as long as you keep up your continuing ed credits and maintain your license, you can hop back into the workforce as necessary with minimal penalty.  I know some nurses and teachers who have done this when they had young kids at home, for example.

But in lots of professions, the door functionally only swings one way.  Once you're out, you're gone.  A partner in a large law firm who leaves the firm and doesn't work for five years will have very few options if they try to come back, and none of them are going to pay like the job they left.  Someone who wound down or sold a successful business might be another example - it would be a very long and uncertain path to recover their previous success.

Whether your work is more like a nurse or more like a partner in a law firm would reasonably influence your willingness to try out retirement and rethink things.

However, at least in the US, inequality between the bottom and middle of the income scale has declined significantly over the past three years, and so maybe the hypothetical crash-and-burn outcomes aren't as bad as they used to be.  For example, I'm watching a guy mow the lawn outside right now.  We're begging for people to work in facilities, and the last I heard they were starting at $24/hr with full benefits for anyone working over 30/hr week.  That's more or less a living wage here, to ride a mower and tend garden beds.  If that's functionally the safety net now, maybe the risk of potentially wanting to reenter the workforce isn't so great.

I can tell you from experience that it's a lot easier to upskill and find a whole new career when you're already retired and have a huge pile of money.

The door out of my career swung one way because of my disability, but it really hasn't been hard to cultivate other options.

I've written it countless times here: there's a HUGE difference between desperately needing a job to pay this month's rent and choosing to go back to work when there's no urgency and you have plenty of money.

I'm currently taking a few years to retrain because I can. There's zero urgency for me to take a lower paying job because I don't need income to pay my bills. I need income to ultimately feel secure enough long term, but that can wait while I retrain.

The main thing that keeps people in low paying jobs is that they need the income too urgently to do the things they need to do to get better paying jobs.

Early retirees have everything they need to succeed: time, money, resourcefulness, and intelligence.

Needing to go back to work at some point in retirement is NOT the same as needing a job to keep the lights on.

I personally took a full 2 years to figure out what I wanted to do, and am currently taking another 3 years to upskill in order to do it. I specifically chose to retrain in a career where the door swings both ways so that I can leave and re-enter as I see fit, that is flexible, part time, pays well, and has no ageism or ableism.

A lot of people don't want to have to retrain, but when shit hits the fan and you have to, it's really not the worst thing in the world when you have plenty of time and money to do so.

In fact, my current program is more like a hobby. I'm retired, I like to read and write, so why not get a new credential for it and make a whole whackload of money in a few years?

[Villanelle]

MCat, makes a great point that I don't often see discussed.  If you decide to have a kid or there's a major medical event that costs you six figures out of pocket and then the market also tanks, you may look at your stache and see that it's gone from $1m to $800k, and feel that you are in danger of running out of money, even if you make some cuts. 

But you still have $750k (or $500k, or $300k) to pay the rent and buy groceries, so it's not like you are weeks away from homelessness.  At that point you can be thoughtful about getting a decent job, rather than needing to take the first thing with a paycheck that comes along.  That means you can take (and pay for) some courses to bring your skills from your old job up to date.  Or go to school for a year to learn a new in-demand skill.  Your back isn't up against the wall like it is when you are living paycheck to paycheck and get a pink slip. 

You also aren't in the "it's expensive to be poor" trap.  You can still replace your car if it is at the end of its useful life because you have $10k (or whatever number) to be a reliable new vehicle, rather than throwing $500 and $1000 at a POS car every time something fails.  You can buy quality shoes that last several years, rather than disposable fast-fashion crap.  You can afford to buy in bulk and have the resulting lumpy grocery spending. 

If our plan goes sideways, and continues to go sideways beyond or first several layers of contingency plans, we will likely both sign up to substitute teachers if DH can't find work with his skills (which will depend in part on how out dated they are).  That can bring in decent money.  And I'd potentially go back to school to finish my masters degree in Library and Info Science which, while not the most lucrative, is a surprisingly diverse career field and will open up mane options including FT, PT, and contract.   I'll be a whole lot better off than someone who has $187 in savings and gets laid off. 

[roomtempmayo]

A lot of people don't want to have to retrain, but when shit hits the fan and you have to, it's really not the worst thing in the world when you have plenty of time and money to do so.

I think that's true if you're relatively young and want to work for a long time, but I can't say I've ever known someone who was 50+ who had to start all over who really thrived.  I'm sure they're out there, but it seems far from the rule.

It's one thing to put a bunch of time, money, and energy into a new path when you have 25+ years of work left.  But when you have 10 or 15 years left of an ordinary career, and your options start to look like the hustle and grind of self-employment since it's unlikely someone will hire you - not so much.

One of the lessons I've internalized pretty deeply by watching globalization play out in the US over the past 30-40 years is to do whatever it takes to not need to switch fields late in your career.  Like you mention, money absolutely makes that easier, but the older you are the more retraining looks like buying yourself a job rather than changing directions.

[Metalcat]

A lot of people don't want to have to retrain, but when shit hits the fan and you have to, it's really not the worst thing in the world when you have plenty of time and money to do so.

I think that's true if you're relatively young and want to work for a long time, but I can't say I've ever known someone who was 50+ who had to start all over who really thrived.  I'm sure they're out there, but it seems far from the rule.

It's one thing to put a bunch of time, money, and energy into a new path when you have 25+ years of work left.  But when you have 10 or 15 years left of an ordinary career, and your options start to look like the hustle and grind of self-employment since it's unlikely someone will hire you - not so much.

One of the lessons I've internalized pretty deeply by watching globalization play out in the US over the past 30-40 years is to do whatever it takes to not need to switch fields late in your career.  Like you mention, money absolutely makes that easier, but the older you are the more retraining looks like buying yourself a job rather than changing directions.

Funny, both of my parents started entirely new careers in their 50s, as did my aunt and uncle. You don't have to be super young to take an interest in new skills and for those skills to be valuable.

For a lot of us, learning new things is just fun and a great use of our free time. Tons of seniors also volunteer, and volunteering can be an incredible gateway to new careers. My aunt was 65 and bored so she took a free Inuit language class at the local university. She now gets massive grants for children's literature that she works on collaboratively with Inuit artists.

I picked up a pretty reasonably well paid part time job last year that had zero to do with my previous career, but that I was uniquely qualified for because I had volunteered as condo board president for my building.

I took a solid half dozen free online certification courses before deciding to finally commit to a full graduate degree. Any of those courses could be combined with volunteer work and networking and developed into decent professional work, especially since I don't need a full-on, full time career.

The world of flexible, casual, part-time, contract work is MASSIVE, and most of the opportunities aren't listed as job listings, they come up through networking and proposing that you get paid for shit you're good at.

[farmecologist]

A lot of people don't want to have to retrain, but when shit hits the fan and you have to, it's really not the worst thing in the world when you have plenty of time and money to do so.

I think that's true if you're relatively young and want to work for a long time, but I can't say I've ever known someone who was 50+ who had to start all over who really thrived.  I'm sure they're out there, but it seems far from the rule.

It's one thing to put a bunch of time, money, and energy into a new path when you have 25+ years of work left.  But when you have 10 or 15 years left of an ordinary career, and your options start to look like the hustle and grind of self-employment since it's unlikely someone will hire you - not so much.

One of the lessons I've internalized pretty deeply by watching globalization play out in the US over the past 30-40 years is to do whatever it takes to not need to switch fields late in your career.  Like you mention, money absolutely makes that easier, but the older you are the more retraining looks like buying yourself a job rather than changing directions.

Absolutely.  After a 30+ year in tech, I'm pretty much done, and I'm still pretty young ( started right out of college ).  No F'n way I'm going back to another tech job after this.  Things have changed so much in such a short period of time, and I have absolutely no interest in software engineering/programming anymore.  I'm just riding things out until the company does something I don't like....or I get laid off.   No way I'm going to retrain for any length of time either.   

With that said, a 30 year career in a field such as mine should be enough to set anyone up for a great retirement....if even a small amount of planning was done.   Unfortunately, I'm pretty shocked at how many haven't really planned at all ( i.e. - the "die at my keyboard" excuse types ).  Kind of sad, really...but actions have consequences.

Thankfully, I have planned for decades to have options and contingencies.  And I'm just about ready to take the plunge into early retirement....thankfully at a relatively young age.  I want to do "fun" things in retirement...like volunteering, or even a "fun" job somewhere like a garden center, etc...  I absolutely don't want another soul crushing corporate job this late in life!

[mistymoney]

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

I think it really depends on your career.  For some people, I can imagine that as long as you keep up your continuing ed credits and maintain your license, you can hop back into the workforce as necessary with minimal penalty.  I know some nurses and teachers who have done this when they had young kids at home, for example.

But in lots of professions, the door functionally only swings one way.  Once you're out, you're gone.  A partner in a large law firm who leaves the firm and doesn't work for five years will have very few options if they try to come back, and none of them are going to pay like the job they left.  Someone who wound down or sold a successful business might be another example - it would be a very long and uncertain path to recover their previous success.

Whether your work is more like a nurse or more like a partner in a law firm would reasonably influence your willingness to try out retirement and rethink things.

However, at least in the US, inequality between the bottom and middle of the income scale has declined significantly over the past three years, and so maybe the hypothetical crash-and-burn outcomes aren't as bad as they used to be.  For example, I'm watching a guy mow the lawn outside right now.  We're begging for people to work in facilities, and the last I heard they were starting at $24/hr with full benefits for anyone working over 30/hr week.  That's more or less a living wage here, to ride a mower and tend garden beds.  If that's functionally the safety net now, maybe the risk of potentially wanting to reenter the workforce isn't so great.

100% agree that it is career-dependent on if you can reenter what you did and what level you can get in at given how long you've been away from it.

but I think it was livingafi fired for 5 years, got ill, got divorced, went back to his IT career, and is thinking about kids with new partner and a different kind of life where he is going to need to save up more. I can't recall the job details but it seemed relatively seemless for him get back in.

10 or 15 years might have posed a different scenario, and other careers as you said might be much less forgiving.

That said - just starting over - if someone is willing to go entry level into their former career or *gasp* minimum wage/unqualified experience route, then there are more options. I wonder how people's pride might interfer with that kind of a reset?

[mistymoney]

MCat, makes a great point that I don't often see discussed.  If you decide to have a kid or there's a major medical event that costs you six figures out of pocket and then the market also tanks, you may look at your stache and see that it's gone from $1m to $800k, and feel that you are in danger of running out of money, even if you make some cuts. 

But you still have $750k (or $500k, or $300k) to pay the rent and buy groceries, so it's not like you are weeks away from homelessness. 

Now, this is just me of course, but I think I would be pooping out the proverbial clay biscuits.  I would feel like all my hard work and sacrifice to build up the stach had been worthless as I watched my security melting away....

again, just me, speaking as a singleton who has no one to have my back. I don't have anyone in my life that I would ask to sleep on their couch for a few months to get myself together, it's just me and my monopoly money deposited in the bank of sp500......

[Villanelle]

A lot of people don't want to have to retrain, but when shit hits the fan and you have to, it's really not the worst thing in the world when you have plenty of time and money to do so.

I think that's true if you're relatively young and want to work for a long time, but I can't say I've ever known someone who was 50+ who had to start all over who really thrived.  I'm sure they're out there, but it seems far from the rule.

It's one thing to put a bunch of time, money, and energy into a new path when you have 25+ years of work left.  But when you have 10 or 15 years left of an ordinary career, and your options start to look like the hustle and grind of self-employment since it's unlikely someone will hire you - not so much.

One of the lessons I've internalized pretty deeply by watching globalization play out in the US over the past 30-40 years is to do whatever it takes to not need to switch fields late in your career.  Like you mention, money absolutely makes that easier, but the older you are the more retraining looks like buying yourself a job rather than changing directions.

It doesn't need to be a complete 180* career shift though.  In some cases, perhaps.  If you were a coal miner, are their jobs that use at least some of this skills?  IDK.  But if you were a teacher, for example, you don't need to become a hairdresser and learn a completely new skillset.  Teacher to librarian?  There's a lot of parallels there, and not just in "self-employment" gigs, though you could also start doing test prep, tutoring, helping with college essays, etc.  Or teaching cooking classes, or life skills to people with challenges.  You'd probably need some training for those things, but it's not like you are going from chalk to cheese. 

And I am not so sure someone who got a CPA license at 45 would struggle to get hired, whether they had previously been a coal miner, teacher, doctor, or book keeper.  At 65?  Maybe, but plans aren't going to fail suddenly at 65, in massive ways and due to the supposed "things I didn't expect when I made a plan a few decades ago" rule that seems to be the primary concern being discussed.

And as always, I have to point out that if someone's situation leads them to think they should go back to work, most money-savvy people (which is nearly anyone who FIREs) are going to figure that out before it's dire.  And they can likely manage that by simply bringing in fairly modest part-time income.  They don't need the $150k (or 300k, or whatever it was) salary that got them there.  $10k/yr for most FIREes (or even just Rees) is going to be at least 10% less that they have to withdraw, while still allowing them nearly all of the flexibility, relaxation, and free time that are the primary attractions of retiring. 

And the earlier in your FIRE path that you end up wanting to go back to work, the easier it would be to go back to your old career, or take a quick refresher/update training to get back up to speed.  Which works out nicely because the longer you've lived your plan, the less likely you are to face these "I went from not wanting kids to adopting a dozen of them" scenarios that would massive change the budget plan.

[Nicholas Carter]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

[Cassie]

I obtained my second graduate degree at 40 to obtain a new career and there were others in my program 5-10 years older than me. So people do change direction when older. I have lived in 5 states and all but where I live now were lower cost of living.

 I live in Reno because of my career and it’s a beautiful city with a mild 4 seasons. People have been flooding in for 26 years and our COL has skyrocketed. There’s no way I would move back to my previous locations just because it’s cheaper.

[ChpBstrd]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

[Villanelle]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I've lived a lot of places and I much prefer the more expensive ones (especially if we don't include costs in the metric), and that has nothing to do with the fact that they are expensive.  Weather is the #1 factor, and for me, it makes such a huge difference in my happiness and QOL that I don't think I could overstate it.  (My current H/VH COL area--the great DC region--has a lot of other great things going for it, but for me, the weather is a major downside, largely due to the humid and mosquito-ridden summers. It has a lot of other great things going for it, and certainly there are places with much worse weather, but I hate the summers here.)  Everything from access to culture, variety of natural experiences, the education level of the general populace, access to interesting foods, and more have all made the HCOL places more desirable for me than the LCOL places.  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean all those things are better-enough to want to pay the price for them.  For our current area (see: my complaints about weather), it wouldn't be if this weren't where DH's job is.  For San Diego?  It may be.   

I'm not a car person, but it was very clear to me when I had a Toyota Echo and I drove a friend's Mercedes on a road trip that their car was better, and that had nothing to do with it being more expensive.  Most notable for me was how very quiet it was.  Now, I was not about to pay several tens of thousands of dollars more for it, but it was objectively and obviously better, completely outside the supposed chance of driving a fancy car.   

[Scandium]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

[mistymoney]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

[farmecologist]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally. 

 

[ixtap]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

[ChpBstrd]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

[Log]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

There's truth to that, but I don't think it's quite that simplistic. Driving a Honda doesn't preclude you from hanging out with people who have Acuras, but if you want to hang out with people who live in expensive cities, you have to live in an expensive city. There's a network effect.

We obviously have a huge loneliness epidemic in this country, and there's a distinctive form of it among the college-educated striver types. If you move all around the country for college, grad school, summer internships, a first job... then the friends you've made over those years are more likely to end up in these high status cities. It's only natural to want to live close to your tribe, and the "elite college educated/knowledge worker" tribe is this amorphous geographically unconstrained thing. The closest you can get to being close to your tribe is to go to one of these cities that is 1) a magnet for those kinds of people, and 2) a tourist destination for those kinds of people, so you can see them when they travel.

Sure, you can get a remote work job and live in Cheaposville and build a new tribe from scratch, but for most people that's easier said than done.

---

*also re the above: I dispute the phrase "congestion costs." Life is good in walkable neighborhoods with trains.

[wageslave23]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

There are two types of people who live in HCOL areas. The first live there for non financial reasons like family or they like the "excitement" and amenities.  The second group live there for financial reasons. I live in a medium cost of living area and would love to move to a lower cost of living area and have even applied for jobs there, but I would make $25k net less and my expenses would only decrease by 8k.  My wife would take a 30% paycut.  So I love small Midwest, southeast towns but I can't afford to live their until I retire.

[Metalcat]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

There are two types of people who live in HCOL areas. The first live there for non financial reasons like family or they like the "excitement" and amenities.  The second group live there for financial reasons. I live in a medium cost of living area and would love to move to a lower cost of living area and have even applied for jobs there, but I would make $25k net less and my expenses would only decrease by 8k.  My wife would take a 30% paycut.  So I love small Midwest, southeast towns but I can't afford to live their until I retire.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

A Muslim Somalian woman who works in theater isn't exactly likely to thrive in communities outside of major cities in Canada. Ottawa has a massive Somalian population, Montreal has one of the highest populations of Lebanese outside of major cities in Lebanon, 95% of Black Canadians live in major cities, and after traveling in rural Canada with black folks...it shows, and I've been to plenty of places where a rainbow flag could incite violence.

Also, when looking at jobs, you can't just look at employment rates, you have to look at industries. There are many industries where someone just cannot have much of a chance of success unless they live in major cities, at least in Canada.

So ethnic culture, social culture, and professional culture are all reasons why some people might consider certain HCOL regions worth paying for.

If I weren't cis/straight/white, I sure as shit wouldn't be living where I am right now where housing costs are low.

Granted, I'm talking about Canada where the overwhelming majority of our entire population lives in major cities, and we don't actually have a lot of medium sized cities to even choose from. So our demographic distribution is quite a bit different than the US.

Not living in an HCOL region in Canada is a pretty difficult thing to pull off, so we might have a different cultural relationship with HCOL regions.

[SotI]

Not sure if that's a US vs Europe thing, or a matter of age, or something very individual.
As for LCOL vs VHCOL areas: I used to live in VHCOL (major European capital) at a time when I could least afford it, as a graduate and then starting out in consultancy. I did enjoy it for the first few years, due to the opportunities it provided (culture, international melting pot, networking).

Over time, however, I found the cost-benefit ratio waning - and moved to a much LCOL area. That required much longer commutes (but still less than many commuters would expect in the capital). But for me, living in the sticks has actually been preferable with a stable international career.
City life felt like "been there, done that" - not worth it to me at that level of expense (and that was pre-FC). Especially, as my jobs used to require (pre-Covid) extensive international travel. So I could address any need for sightseeing or cultural events without bearing the private HCOL.

I found that to be the best of both worlds. So, maybe I have just been lucky, or simply outgrown city life. There are ofc also VHLOC areas outside cities, but that's deffo out of budget (if your not a high-end multi-millionaire, which I am not). So I prefer the lower cost rural settings and doubt that this will change, even in older age.

[Scandium]

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

You mention some recreation activity features, and seem skeptical these are worth it? Where do you have the number that <1% use these? And why "on any given day"? If I lived next to the beach I wouldn't go every day, but certainly often. I don't go to the DC museums every day, but have taken my kids, and guests, multiple times every year. Is it "worth it"..? How do you measure that? But I enjoy being able to do that easily.

I'd argue for many people their daily lives do indeed revolve around using the amenities around them. Just because you don't see every local citizen at the beach, or museum, at one time doesn't mean they don't. Many jog on local trails, visit museums, go to beaches or parks, restaurants, walk around neighborhoods etc. All the time. Some of the lowest LCOL areas are extremely rural. You're not near any of these things, and you have to drive everywhere. You might have nature nearby, so that's a plus. But many value all these other things more than that singular feature of rural living (I love nature and hiking, but on balance side with the latter. Besides we have plenty of nature close enough). It's the full complement of amenities people want, not just "a beach"..

But I think more important than that are schools, and denser area. People with kids want good schools, pretty easy. They move to where they area.
As much as you dislike dense areas, many obviously don't. The US has such an extreme lack of walk/bikeable areas that the few that exist are some of the most desirable and expensive in the nation! Where i live is hardly a walkable paradise, but it has bike lanes, trails, sidewalks, and I can access at least some things without a car, my kids walk to school. I value that highly! I visit rural areas where leaving your driveway means walking on a highway with no sidewalk... And I don't want to live there, even if the house is 1/2 the price of mine. Others obviously disagree. Even with a car, I'd rather drive 15 min to things like grocery store, home depot, whatever, than 45 min. YEs that means there area *horror* a lot of other people around. But that's what comes with living in a compact area with attractive features, I really don't have a problem with it. I adapt my lifestyle to the density, and deal with it. (get a job close by/WFH, visit less-busy things, go on off-times, hike in "bad" weather etc).

Also, for how much people living in rural areas complain about supposed "sneering" from urban folks I hear at least the same (or more) derisive comments about how horrible city life, and how it's unimaginable to live there, from the rural crowd!

[farmecologist]

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

Exactly.  We live in Minnesota...which is known for it's abundance of lakes.  However, we live in an area of SE Minnesota known as the "driftless area".   NO LAKES in this area...but we do have great trout streams, bluffs, great hiking, etc....and it is rarely visited.   I'll take it!   

[Villanelle]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

You sound like someone who doesn't like or care about the reasons that many areas are expensive (or the reasons that people like those areas).  And I get that.  Not every place is for every person.  But you also seem overly dismissive of other people's preferences that do care about those things.  If someone loves the fishing in some more remote area, or values miles of dessert hiking, or whatever, I'm not going to say, "why live in that place, because probably only >1% of people use those things every day."  That's a meaningless statistic when you are looking at an *individual's* choice.

I can only speak for myself, but when I lived <15 minute walk from the beach?  I was there 4+ times a week.  And that doesn't include all the times I dined outside because of the amazing weather. When I lived within fairly easy access of DC's museums and other offerings?  At least once a month.  I was in a truly walkable neighborhood so nearly all my errands were on foot (made nicer by great weather). And the list goes one.  So sure, there are people who live in [Insert HCOLA Here] and don't take advantage of them, but even thing I think most are explained by having ended up there [birth, moved as a kid, got a job] and staying, or having family. 

Contrast that with my current location (still great DC, but out in the burbs because DH's job moved and we prioritized a short commute, at the expense of easy access to DC).  I'd say right now, the weather here affects me every day.  I'm sensitive to heat, and I'm crazy reactive to mosquito bites, and also somehow very attractive to the little blood-sucking fuckers.  I loath going outside this time of year.  I'd say the weather here affects my life in a not-insignificant way every day during the summer.  So even when I wasn't strolling on the beach or dining al fresco, I was still benefitting from San Diego's amazing weather.

I get that these things aren't important to you, but to think that they are kind fake for everyone else, who just secretly like saying, "I live in [Expensive place]" to try to impress people? It just doesn't make sense and doesn't track with everything I've witnessed.  I won't say there are zero people who do that (though even then, I'd question whether it's truly the *reason* they live in an expensive area, and not just something they find to be a nice benefit).  But I'd say it is a tiny minority.  It's almost like you like bragging that you don't live in a HCOLA, which is exactly what you are accusing the other side of.  And even then, I wouldn't suggest that's the reason you choose to live there--just a nice unintended consequence you seem to enjoy. 

[wageslave23]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

There are two types of people who live in HCOL areas. The first live there for non financial reasons like family or they like the "excitement" and amenities.  The second group live there for financial reasons. I live in a medium cost of living area and would love to move to a lower cost of living area and have even applied for jobs there, but I would make $25k net less and my expenses would only decrease by 8k.  My wife would take a 30% paycut.  So I love small Midwest, southeast towns but I can't afford to live their until I retire.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

A Muslim Somalian woman who works in theater isn't exactly likely to thrive in communities outside of major cities in Canada. Ottawa has a massive Somalian population, Montreal has one of the highest populations of Lebanese outside of major cities in Lebanon, 95% of Black Canadians live in major cities, and after traveling in rural Canada with black folks...it shows, and I've been to plenty of places where a rainbow flag could incite violence.

Also, when looking at jobs, you can't just look at employment rates, you have to look at industries. There are many industries where someone just cannot have much of a chance of success unless they live in major cities, at least in Canada.

So ethnic culture, social culture, and professional culture are all reasons why some people might consider certain HCOL regions worth paying for.

If I weren't cis/straight/white, I sure as shit wouldn't be living where I am right now where housing costs are low.

Granted, I'm talking about Canada where the overwhelming majority of our entire population lives in major cities, and we don't actually have a lot of medium sized cities to even choose from. So our demographic distribution is quite a bit different than the US.

Not living in an HCOL region in Canada is a pretty difficult thing to pull off, so we might have a different cultural relationship with HCOL regions.

They are included in the non financial reasons people.  I just didn't flesh out all of the people this covers. Black, gay, liberal, educated, etc people might have a hard time fitting in with locals in some of the lowest cost of living areas.

Schools are another big factor someone else just mentioned.  My spouse is adament about Irving in a good school district (average ACT scores in the 22-24 range). Sure as shit, all the LCOL places I want to move to have high schools that average 17-19. I personally don't think this matters. Except culturally if most of your classmates are going to college and their parents have degrees and value education,  them it's probably easier to follow that path yourself. Which goes along with the first part of malcats culture factor.

[ixtap]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

There are two types of people who live in HCOL areas. The first live there for non financial reasons like family or they like the "excitement" and amenities.  The second group live there for financial reasons. I live in a medium cost of living area and would love to move to a lower cost of living area and have even applied for jobs there, but I would make $25k net less and my expenses would only decrease by 8k.  My wife would take a 30% paycut.  So I love small Midwest, southeast towns but I can't afford to live their until I retire.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

A Muslim Somalian woman who works in theater isn't exactly likely to thrive in communities outside of major cities in Canada. Ottawa has a massive Somalian population, Montreal has one of the highest populations of Lebanese outside of major cities in Lebanon, 95% of Black Canadians live in major cities, and after traveling in rural Canada with black folks...it shows, and I've been to plenty of places where a rainbow flag could incite violence.

Also, when looking at jobs, you can't just look at employment rates, you have to look at industries. There are many industries where someone just cannot have much of a chance of success unless they live in major cities, at least in Canada.

So ethnic culture, social culture, and professional culture are all reasons why some people might consider certain HCOL regions worth paying for.

If I weren't cis/straight/white, I sure as shit wouldn't be living where I am right now where housing costs are low.

Granted, I'm talking about Canada where the overwhelming majority of our entire population lives in major cities, and we don't actually have a lot of medium sized cities to even choose from. So our demographic distribution is quite a bit different than the US.

Not living in an HCOL region in Canada is a pretty difficult thing to pull off, so we might have a different cultural relationship with HCOL regions.

They are included in the non financial reasons people.  I just didn't flesh out all of the people this covers. Black, gay, liberal, educated, etc people might have a hard time fitting in with locals in some of the lowest cost of living areas.

Schools are another big factor someone else just mentioned.  My spouse is adament about Irving in a good school district (average ACT scores in the 22-24 range). Sure as shit, all the LCOL places I want to move to have high schools that average 17-19. I personally don't think this matters. Except culturally if most of your classmates are going to college and their parents have degrees and value education,  them it's probably easier to follow that path yourself. Which goes along with the first part of malcats culture factor.

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.

[getsorted]

the mountain biking in Arkansas,

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

The housing prices in Bentonville are what they are because it's the headquarters of Wal-Mart, and it's basically the expensive end of a mini-metro sprawl that includes the significantly more affordable Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville, all of which have easy access to incredible natural parks, great mountain biking, kayaking, etc.

I agree with @ChpBstrd that smaller and more affordable cities are more of an option than people in larger cities give them credit for. Funny story: I was living in the UK and having dinner with a couple; one of them travelled to the Midwest frequently for work and had just come back from Louisville, KY, where he said he had had several of the best meals of his life. I had lived near Louisville for a while and we talked about its fine dining scene and music scene for a little bit. He said, "You just don't expect to find a place like Louisville in the middle of nowhere!" I had a little bit of a laugh about that. There are tons of great smaller cities like that.

I've lived in a few major cities, but spent most of my life in smaller cities with big colleges. I know that trepidation about moving to the so-called hinterlands is a real problem for university recruitment in the Midwest. But I've also known a lot of people who made the move and then really enjoyed a good quality of life at a discount price.

[roomtempmayo]

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota?

Funny, I priced houses in Bentonville after mountain biking there.  Turns out, it's not cheap.  Many of the nicer houses on a pretty standard lot in town are $700k+, and little ranchettes around the countryside are often $1M+.  That's at least MCOL, and probably HCOL.

The massive gap in what it costs to live within the Bentonville umbrella versus 50 miles away is largely explained by the Walmart employment ecosystem and recreational/cultural amenities, i.e. people will pay a lot more to live near good jobs and recreation.

I can't really think of many places with great amenities with a really LCOL, perhaps because most amenities take $$$ to build and maintain.

[Scandium]

the mountain biking in Arkansas,

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

The housing prices in Bentonville are what they are because it's the headquarters of Wal-Mart, and it's basically the expensive end of a mini-metro sprawl that includes the significantly more affordable Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville, all of which have easy access to incredible natural parks, great mountain biking, kayaking, etc.

I agree with @ChpBstrd that smaller and more affordable cities are more of an option than people in larger cities give them credit for. Funny story: I was living in the UK and having dinner with a couple; one of them travelled to the Midwest frequently for work and had just come back from Louisville, KY, where he said he had had several of the best meals of his life. I had lived near Louisville for a while and we talked about its fine dining scene and music scene for a little bit. He said, "You just don't expect to find a place like Louisville in the middle of nowhere!" I had a little bit of a laugh about that. There are tons of great smaller cities like that.

I've lived in a few major cities, but spent most of my life in smaller cities with big colleges. I know that trepidation about moving to the so-called hinterlands is a real problem for university recruitment in the Midwest. But I've also known a lot of people who made the move and then really enjoyed a good quality of life at a discount price.

So, those towns that are not Bentonville have access to outdoor recreation. Ok call me picky, but that's not all I'd look for. Do they have good schools? Access to museums, zoos? Close proximity to stores (groceries and lowes, not "shopping")? Walkable, bikeable access to libraries and other things? I honestly don't know, but there are often reasons why people choose the denser areas.

I think there's a disconnect between the people who dislike urbane areas, who simply don't understand why anyone would live there when you could live in X, and; "it's a) cheap, and b) only a 30 min drive to mountain bike/hike/hunting/or whatever".
Failing to see that for many that's not all they look for. I love hiking, but I'm not moving somewhere with great hiking if I have to drive 45 min to get something at home depot or go to the movies, and there are no sidewalks in my neighborhood!

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).

edit: i take that back about Louisville being cheap! Every affordable house I clicked on the schools are rate 2/10! :O Further out the schools are better, and the homes are $600-700k+, of course.. I found $500k houses with 1/10 schools.. My HCOL area homes cost that much, and schools are 8/10. So yeah not sold on it

[ChpBstrd]

You sound like someone who doesn't like or care about the reasons that many areas are expensive (or the reasons that people like those areas).  And I get that.  Not every place is for every person.  But you also seem overly dismissive of other people's preferences that do care about those things.  If someone loves the fishing in some more remote area, or values miles of dessert hiking, or whatever, I'm not going to say, "why live in that place, because probably only >1% of people use those things every day."  That's a meaningless statistic when you are looking at an *individual's* choice.

I can only speak for myself, but when I lived <15 minute walk from the beach?  I was there 4+ times a week.  And that doesn't include all the times I dined outside because of the amazing weather. When I lived within fairly easy access of DC's museums and other offerings?  At least once a month.  I was in a truly walkable neighborhood so nearly all my errands were on foot (made nicer by great weather). And the list goes one.  So sure, there are people who live in [Insert HCOLA Here] and don't take advantage of them, but even thing I think most are explained by having ended up there [birth, moved as a kid, got a job] and staying, or having family. 

Contrast that with my current location (still great DC, but out in the burbs because DH's job moved and we prioritized a short commute, at the expense of easy access to DC).  I'd say right now, the weather here affects me every day.  I'm sensitive to heat, and I'm crazy reactive to mosquito bites, and also somehow very attractive to the little blood-sucking fuckers.  I loath going outside this time of year.  I'd say the weather here affects my life in a not-insignificant way every day during the summer.  So even when I wasn't strolling on the beach or dining al fresco, I was still benefitting from San Diego's amazing weather.

I get that these things aren't important to you, but to think that they are kind fake for everyone else, who just secretly like saying, "I live in [Expensive place]" to try to impress people? It just doesn't make sense and doesn't track with everything I've witnessed.  I won't say there are zero people who do that (though even then, I'd question whether it's truly the *reason* they live in an expensive area, and not just something they find to be a nice benefit).  But I'd say it is a tiny minority.  It's almost like you like bragging that you don't live in a HCOLA, which is exactly what you are accusing the other side of.  And even then, I wouldn't suggest that's the reason you choose to live there--just a nice unintended consequence you seem to enjoy.

Not so. I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation for why people are paying a difference in money that is enough money to retire in some places so that they can own a bungalow in place X versus a bungalow in place Y. My point was that access to amenities cannot explain the difference. Perhaps you are saying that (a) you'll use whatever local amenities are available wherever you live, be it beaches, museums, or cultural opportunities, or (b) there are certain clusters of amenities that multiply the appeal of certain places. I'll agree with (a) to an extent, but point out that this is a reason to go LCOL, because you'll enjoy the amenities regardless of where you are. Regarding (b) the problem is explaining why each mix of features is more desirable than another mix. I.e. If Southern California is very expensive because it has a pleasant climate and has access to beaches and downhill skiing, then why is Toronto also expensive when it is cold, dark, and lacks a beach or downhill skiing. I'm not saying Toronto doesn't have appeal, but pointing out that at some point we are overfitting our explanations to the observed phenomenon and coming up with weird ideas about how maybe the cluster of amenities in expensive Toronto must be highly appealing but the cluster of amenities in Buffalo, NY must not be appealing because of some tiny details. 

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

Mansions drive up the mean. The median home value in next door Fayetteville, AR is $255k, close to the national average, and median rents are below the national average.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fayettevillecityarkansas,US/PST045222

And Fayetteville/Bentonville are kinda fancy for the Ozarks region. In Fort Smith, AR, Russelville, AR, or Springfield, MO the median home price is around $130-140k. Each of those college cities are surrounded by hundreds of miles of mountain biking trails of all grades, thousands of miles of hiking, great kayaking creeks and rivers, and large freshwater lakes.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

I can see how first-gen immigrants might benefit from an ethnic enclave where other people speak their native language and maybe have no other options to live a satisfactory life, but is this population big enough - and more importantly wealthy enough - to push housing prices to such unaffordable levels? Eh... I don't think it's the immigrants' fault.

Again, I'm not saying people SHOULD live on a rural dirt road in Mississippi instead of Toronto; I'm saying there are a lack of rational reasons to explain differences in the cost of living.

If HCOL areas are expensive because they are relatively low-racism places, then we are at a loss to explain how a black person is better off in Los Angeles (9.6% black) than in the state of Georgia (32.6% black) where they are a much bigger minority. It would seem the racism disincentive would push the Georgia residents to less-racist places, but I've seen no sign that a migration of black refugees is what's pushing up costs in HCOL areas. It's not black folks' fault either. Not to mention this whole possibility rests on the unproven assumption that places like LA or NYC are actually less discriminatory than places like Georgia. It seems many HCOL cities are actually highly segregated (e.g. Los Angeles -> Watts, Compton... Chicago -> South Side) and have well-documented police brutality problems so we should be careful with this assumption. Are people trapped in racist hellholes across the South and Midwest wishing they could move to a HCOL city? Are they bidding up the cost of living from afar with the tens of thousands of dollars they managed to save while living in a racist hellhole? And then if racist places are cheap because POC are moving out, wouldn't that create an arbitrage opportunity for whites who won't suffer as much from the racism? This theory is getting complicated quick!

Again, people *should* live wherever they want, but even cultural factors seem to fade as a possible explanation for the price difference. Yes, some people can't imagine living more than a mile from Broadway and others can't imagine living where they can't raise chickens, but this doesn't seem to be a supply and demand kind of thing.

One possibility I'm considering is that the high baseline costs of living are pushing low-education/low-earnings people out of HCOL areas and into LCOL areas. I.e. a gentrification chain reaction is to blame. That aligns somewhat with the demographic / cultural data, but not completely. According to this theory, as high-ed/high-earn people concentrate in an area, they raise the cost of living for the LE/LE people, eventually persuading some marginal number of them to move to cheaper areas. As the population tilts more toward HE/HE, the gentrification process takes off and eventually prices out all but the most stubborn LE/LE people. This reaches a limit of course - LE wages should rise as LE workers became more scarce, and as costs rose ever higher more HE/HE people would eventually take the incentive and move to lower-cost areas. Nonetheless, a stable equilibrium could occur where some places are more HE/HE and others more LE/LE.

[mistymoney]

LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

The thing that determines the cost of living in an area is largely neither more nor less than "do people want to live there?"

I have a theory that "do people want to live there" has a lot to do with whether it is expensive. People want the status that comes from living somewhere that is more expensive than where most other people live. It's the same reason an Acura costs more than a Honda, or a Range Rover more than a Chevrolet.

I don't buy this, for the vast majority of people. I'm cynical and think humans in general are pretty garbage and thoughtless, but I don't think many will uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place, simply for the "status" of living somewhere expensive! People do a lot of dumb shit for pointless status, but this is not one of them.

People want to live in expensive places, because they like the place and find something about it attractive. Really, it's that places with a lot of attractive features become expensive. Things like good schools, weather, access to culture/nature/water/whatever, good jobs make people want to live there. It's pretty simple.

the other side is that pricey areas are generally more populous - meaning a lot more people are born there, grow up there. so for all those born there - they would need to "uproot their whole lives and move away from everything, and everyone, they know, and take their home, job, kids, family to a totally new place" to leave the HCOL area. Lots do of course! But a lot stay, and a lot who leave may also leave for another HCOL area - maybe even spendier.....

The other side to the other side is why people travel.  People live where they can afford, have roots, etc...and travel to "nice" places.  I can tell you that while I absolutely love many of the places we have visited, there is no way I would want to live in many of them.  As you said, FAR too many people live in many of these "nice" HCOL areas.   I'd rather travel and visit occasionally.

I live in the kind of place people like that travel to. There is still plenty to learn and experience by traveling to other places, but I never travel someplace expecting it to.be *nicer* than where I live and I don't recall ever traveling with that expectation, whether I lived in Podunk, Metroland or anything in between. Except maybe Miami. That place has a miserable vibe, but I was too busy and poor to travel to get away from it then.

The expensiveness of a place is often explained by various "features" such as the presence of beaches in Florida, snowy mountains near Denver, Broadway shows in NYC, or museums in D.C. You'd think the lifestyles of people in such areas would involve constant use of such amenities and that's why they pay so much to live there, but a quick visit reveals only a tiny <1% percentage of the population on any given day goes to the beach, skis, attends a Broadway show, or goes to a museum in their own city. So if the populations are not enjoying the amenities, what explains the higher prices?

Also, why aren't we talking about the amenities of LCOL areas, such as the whitewater rafting in Tenessee or West Virginia, the mountain biking in Arkansas, the Kentucky Derby in Kentucky, the beautiful sweeping cloudscapes of Oklahoma and Kansas, the hiking in Wyoming, or the ice fishing in Minnesota? Everywhere has something for somebody, but we tend to call an amenity valuable only if it serves as an explanation for the high costs of living in a place.

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.

This brings us to a point made above: HCOL areas tend to be crowded with lots of people. To some extent, having access to lots of people is a benefit. It makes job recruiting, dating, finding hobbyist friends, and finding specialists more convenient. But again, are people in HCOL areas engaging in these particular behaviors moreso than people in LCOL areas? Do these benefits outweigh congestion costs? And is the effect actually real? Is it really hard to find a good dentist or art historian or Volvo mechanic in a LCOL city? As a LCOL area resident, I've never had a problem finding anyone. 

HCOL areas are just another trendy neighborhood.

There are two types of people who live in HCOL areas. The first live there for non financial reasons like family or they like the "excitement" and amenities.  The second group live there for financial reasons. I live in a medium cost of living area and would love to move to a lower cost of living area and have even applied for jobs there, but I would make $25k net less and my expenses would only decrease by 8k.  My wife would take a 30% paycut.  So I love small Midwest, southeast towns but I can't afford to live their until I retire.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

A Muslim Somalian woman who works in theater isn't exactly likely to thrive in communities outside of major cities in Canada. Ottawa has a massive Somalian population, Montreal has one of the highest populations of Lebanese outside of major cities in Lebanon, 95% of Black Canadians live in major cities, and after traveling in rural Canada with black folks...it shows, and I've been to plenty of places where a rainbow flag could incite violence.

Also, when looking at jobs, you can't just look at employment rates, you have to look at industries. There are many industries where someone just cannot have much of a chance of success unless they live in major cities, at least in Canada.

So ethnic culture, social culture, and professional culture are all reasons why some people might consider certain HCOL regions worth paying for.

If I weren't cis/straight/white, I sure as shit wouldn't be living where I am right now where housing costs are low.

Granted, I'm talking about Canada where the overwhelming majority of our entire population lives in major cities, and we don't actually have a lot of medium sized cities to even choose from. So our demographic distribution is quite a bit different than the US.

Not living in an HCOL region in Canada is a pretty difficult thing to pull off, so we might have a different cultural relationship with HCOL regions.

They are included in the non financial reasons people.  I just didn't flesh out all of the people this covers. Black, gay, liberal, educated, etc people might have a hard time fitting in with locals in some of the lowest cost of living areas.

Schools are another big factor someone else just mentioned.  My spouse is adament about Irving in a good school district (average ACT scores in the 22-24 range). Sure as shit, all the LCOL places I want to move to have high schools that average 17-19. I personally don't think this matters. Except culturally if most of your classmates are going to college and their parents have degrees and value education,  them it's probably easier to follow that path yourself. Which goes along with the first part of malcats culture factor.

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 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.

[Villanelle]

You sound like someone who doesn't like or care about the reasons that many areas are expensive (or the reasons that people like those areas).  And I get that.  Not every place is for every person.  But you also seem overly dismissive of other people's preferences that do care about those things.  If someone loves the fishing in some more remote area, or values miles of dessert hiking, or whatever, I'm not going to say, "why live in that place, because probably only >1% of people use those things every day."  That's a meaningless statistic when you are looking at an *individual's* choice.

I can only speak for myself, but when I lived <15 minute walk from the beach?  I was there 4+ times a week.  And that doesn't include all the times I dined outside because of the amazing weather. When I lived within fairly easy access of DC's museums and other offerings?  At least once a month.  I was in a truly walkable neighborhood so nearly all my errands were on foot (made nicer by great weather). And the list goes one.  So sure, there are people who live in [Insert HCOLA Here] and don't take advantage of them, but even thing I think most are explained by having ended up there [birth, moved as a kid, got a job] and staying, or having family. 

Contrast that with my current location (still great DC, but out in the burbs because DH's job moved and we prioritized a short commute, at the expense of easy access to DC).  I'd say right now, the weather here affects me every day.  I'm sensitive to heat, and I'm crazy reactive to mosquito bites, and also somehow very attractive to the little blood-sucking fuckers.  I loath going outside this time of year.  I'd say the weather here affects my life in a not-insignificant way every day during the summer.  So even when I wasn't strolling on the beach or dining al fresco, I was still benefitting from San Diego's amazing weather.

I get that these things aren't important to you, but to think that they are kind fake for everyone else, who just secretly like saying, "I live in [Expensive place]" to try to impress people? It just doesn't make sense and doesn't track with everything I've witnessed.  I won't say there are zero people who do that (though even then, I'd question whether it's truly the *reason* they live in an expensive area, and not just something they find to be a nice benefit).  But I'd say it is a tiny minority.  It's almost like you like bragging that you don't live in a HCOLA, which is exactly what you are accusing the other side of.  And even then, I wouldn't suggest that's the reason you choose to live there--just a nice unintended consequence you seem to enjoy.

Not so. I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation for why people are paying a difference in money that is enough money to retire in some places so that they can own a bungalow in place X versus a bungalow in place Y. My point was that access to amenities cannot explain the difference. Perhaps you are saying that (a) you'll use whatever local amenities are available wherever you live, be it beaches, museums, or cultural opportunities, or (b) there are certain clusters of amenities that multiply the appeal of certain places. I'll agree with (a) to an extent, but point out that this is a reason to go LCOL, because you'll enjoy the amenities regardless of where you are. Regarding (b) the problem is explaining why each mix of features is more desirable than another mix. I.e. If Southern California is very expensive because it has a pleasant climate and has access to beaches and downhill skiing, then why is Toronto also expensive when it is cold, dark, and lacks a beach or downhill skiing. I'm not saying Toronto doesn't have appeal, but pointing out that at some point we are overfitting our explanations to the observed phenomenon and coming up with weird ideas about how maybe the cluster of amenities in expensive Toronto must be highly appealing but the cluster of amenities in Buffalo, NY must not be appealing because of some tiny details. 

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

Mansions drive up the mean. The median home value in next door Fayetteville, AR is $255k, close to the national average, and median rents are below the national average.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fayettevillecityarkansas,US/PST045222

And Fayetteville/Bentonville are kinda fancy for the Ozarks region. In Fort Smith, AR, Russelville, AR, or Springfield, MO the median home price is around $130-140k. Each of those college cities are surrounded by hundreds of miles of mountain biking trails of all grades, thousands of miles of hiking, great kayaking creeks and rivers, and large freshwater lakes.

You're missing the entire population of people who are culturally not compatible with a lot of smaller communities.

I can see how first-gen immigrants might benefit from an ethnic enclave where other people speak their native language and maybe have no other options to live a satisfactory life, but is this population big enough - and more importantly wealthy enough - to push housing prices to such unaffordable levels? Eh... I don't think it's the immigrants' fault.

Again, I'm not saying people SHOULD live on a rural dirt road in Mississippi instead of Toronto; I'm saying there are a lack of rational reasons to explain differences in the cost of living.

If HCOL areas are expensive because they are relatively low-racism places, then we are at a loss to explain how a black person is better off in Los Angeles (9.6% black) than in the state of Georgia (32.6% black) where they are a much bigger minority. It would seem the racism disincentive would push the Georgia residents to less-racist places, but I've seen no sign that a migration of black refugees is what's pushing up costs in HCOL areas. It's not black folks' fault either. Not to mention this whole possibility rests on the unproven assumption that places like LA or NYC are actually less discriminatory than places like Georgia. It seems many HCOL cities are actually highly segregated (e.g. Los Angeles -> Watts, Compton... Chicago -> South Side) and have well-documented police brutality problems so we should be careful with this assumption. Are people trapped in racist hellholes across the South and Midwest wishing they could move to a HCOL city? Are they bidding up the cost of living from afar with the tens of thousands of dollars they managed to save while living in a racist hellhole? And then if racist places are cheap because POC are moving out, wouldn't that create an arbitrage opportunity for whites who won't suffer as much from the racism? This theory is getting complicated quick!

Again, people *should* live wherever they want, but even cultural factors seem to fade as a possible explanation for the price difference. Yes, some people can't imagine living more than a mile from Broadway and others can't imagine living where they can't raise chickens, but this doesn't seem to be a supply and demand kind of thing.

One possibility I'm considering is that the high baseline costs of living are pushing low-education/low-earnings people out of HCOL areas and into LCOL areas. I.e. a gentrification chain reaction is to blame. That aligns somewhat with the demographic / cultural data, but not completely. According to this theory, as high-ed/high-earn people concentrate in an area, they raise the cost of living for the LE/LE people, eventually persuading some marginal number of them to move to cheaper areas. As the population tilts more toward HE/HE, the gentrification process takes off and eventually prices out all but the most stubborn LE/LE people. This reaches a limit of course - LE wages should rise as LE workers became more scarce, and as costs rose ever higher more HE/HE people would eventually take the incentive and move to lower-cost areas. Nonetheless, a stable equilibrium could occur where some places are more HE/HE and others more LE/LE.

Why can't they?  As I said, I enjoyed the beach multiple days a week, and the weather nearly every day of the year.  And I enjoyed the incredible theater offerings multiple times a year, they museums 3-4x year, the zoo at least a dozen times a year, the walkable neighborhood  2-3x per week.

I've never found a truly low-cost area that has these things.  Some HCOLAs don't even have all of them (like my current one, which is why I don't want to stay here, though I'm no vehemently opposed).   

So tell me exactly how those amenities don't explain my desire to live in a place that happens to be expensive?

Honestly, you sound like a snob.  You just can't accept that people want to live in these places because of the things they offer, rather than simply because they actually like them.  That was your original statement--that the reason people want to live in these places is simply bragging rights.  That's nonsensical. Is the reason you want to live where you live because of bragging rights?  No?  Right, because there are things about it you like, one of which is probably that it is cheap.  So why can't there be things about an expensive place that people like, enough that they'd be willing to pay for them? 

[Scandium]

Not so. I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation for why people are paying a difference in money that is enough money to retire in some places so that they can own a bungalow in place X versus a bungalow in place Y. My point was that access to amenities cannot explain the difference. Perhaps you are saying that (a) you'll use whatever local amenities are available wherever you live, be it beaches, museums, or cultural opportunities, or (b) there are certain clusters of amenities that multiply the appeal of certain places. I'll agree with (a) to an extent, but point out that this is a reason to go LCOL, because you'll enjoy the amenities regardless of where you are. Regarding (b) the problem is explaining why each mix of features is more desirable than another mix. I.e. If Southern California is very expensive because it has a pleasant climate and has access to beaches and downhill skiing, then why is Toronto also expensive when it is cold, dark, and lacks a beach or downhill skiing. I'm not saying Toronto doesn't have appeal, but pointing out that at some point we are overfitting our explanations to the observed phenomenon and coming up with weird ideas about how maybe the cluster of amenities in expensive Toronto must be highly appealing but the cluster of amenities in Buffalo, NY must not be appealing because of some tiny details. 

First: just a random check show that average home prices in Bentonville, Arkansas (the MTB capital) is $540k. Not exactly LCOL I think? So, yeah; nice "feature" makes a lot of people want to live there! Who woulda thunk!

Mansions drive up the mean. The median home value in next door Fayetteville, AR is $255k, close to the national average, and median rents are below the national average.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fayettevillecityarkansas,US/PST045222

And Fayetteville/Bentonville are kinda fancy for the Ozarks region. In Fort Smith, AR, Russelville, AR, or Springfield, MO the median home price is around $130-140k. Each of those college cities are surrounded by hundreds of miles of mountain biking trails of all grades, thousands of miles of hiking, great kayaking creeks and rivers, and large freshwater lakes.

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've been to plenty of rural areas, and as I've explained my priorities above they simply don't exist there. Primarily because many of them (e.g. walkable) rely on density. Because bike trails are closer don't help me when I have to drive everywhere and the only store in town is a walmart.

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.

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"..

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.