See, usually it's me saying that (because I'm usually replying to the people upholding rural living as some kind of ideal) but the thing is, people are moving to these cities, from other urban areas, mmmmostly for work. Not because they're great. They are great! But the gravity is because of the jobs more than anything else. Without that gravity, I tend to think people won't keep moving there in the same numbers and more of them will leave.

If you can get 70-80% of the desirability for 50% of the cost (Boston would be like 80-90% and 60-70%, by my reckoning) while retaining 90% of the salary, and you make it perfectly acceptable on all sides to do so, a lot of people are gonna do that.

I think you overestimate how many people want to be there when career isn’t the driver. Everyone I know who moved to the bay did it for the job and gave zero fucks about the shit lined streets of the city.

If it wasn’t for the abundance of tech jobs, there is exactly 0% chance I would choose to live in the Bay Area. To me (everyone is different), the jobs are the upside, the rest is downside.

If you could take the tech jobs with you (without the negative externalities), where is your ideal location?

If I could simply decide to live anywhere, and have some guarantee that my job opportunities and salary would remain the same as if I were in the Bay Area? So many choices!

If I limited myself to the US, any state with zero state income tax, cheap land/housing, and mild winters would work. I lived in Florida for over a decade and would go back in a heartbeat if the job situation matched the Bay Area. A big suburban house near Las Vegas would be fine. Texas doesn’t seem bad either—lots of land!

Without data there's no way to tell, so some folks will shout out about the inscrutable appeal of the popular cities today while others deify the beauty of nature with country living.

Given that SF was not particularly appealing to live in 10 years ago, I think the story is more complicated.