> Add other bits of cheaper living: lack of commute, cheaper food, etc. It's not just the rent.

At this point, people arguing for moving to lower cost of living area should just show the math.

> Also think how much is an extra hour every day (or however long you commute) worth to you in quality of life.

Just live close to the office. You can literally pay thousands of dollars a month and still be better of financially.

And really, how much is it worth? Is it worth $100K a year? Because that's how much less disposable income/savings some of the people with higher salaries would find them selves with in the proposed scenario.

You can't really show the math beyond personal experience and even then it's all relative to your lifestyle.

Living in the city near the office also depends on the area. I can get out off my town in ~5min at any time of the day. There's no traffic on my street. I've got a creek and walking paths nearby. I have time to cook at home and save on takeaways and potentially improve my health. I wouldn't exchange this for an extra $100k and daily commute.

Living in a smaller city will be different. Having different hobbies will have an impact. I don't see any way to show this makes sense in general. It will be make sense for some people though.

I don't deny that some people prefer living in smaller cities. That's why I initially said "whether the lifestyle differences would be positive or negative is highly dependent on the individual".

What I object to is people saying that cheapness of such places will make up for massive salary reductions. It won't.