I don't know what it will add to the conversation, but I thought it was worth adding in my two cents.

My family of five is supported by my income (~$100k / year).

I get paid weekly. Every Friday, I go into my bank account amd transfer anything in excess of $2000 into the stock market.

Some weeks that's quite a bit of money, some weeks it's not so much money.

As of a week ago when I did the math, we had $65k more to our names this year than we did one year ago.

Probably half of that was money we saved directly, and half was stock market gains, so I guess from a debt payoff perspective maybe that's closer to $30k.

But I guess my point is, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a two income household in a higher-income metro than where I live could have $80k/yr in excess income to pay down debt with.

It's certainly not unreasonable or even uncommon. But, it's still way above the norm in the US. Median household income in the US is somewhere around $65k/year (before taxes and expenses).

Side note - You're only holding $2k in cash for a family of 5? That seems low. Your efforts to invest for the future are commendable, but if you get caught on the bad end of a 2008-style recession, is it enough to keep paying bills?

> You're only holding $2k in cash for a family of 5?

I am holding $2k in a checking account. My savings accounts are appropriately sized to get us by for probably six months to a year.

The other side of this is that "average" living expense has little meaning when applied to a place as big and varied as the U.S., much less the world. In some areas, the cost of living is much higher. The commonly provided solution to living somewhere the cost of living is too high is move. Unfortunately, moving comes with all sorts of other constraints that are rarely considered.

I this case, we're talking about a family, so what if one or both of the the spouses needs to work but can't find work or is paid much less in the new location? Is it still a net win if the family income is reduced to a large degree?

What if there is family in the current location but not any target location? Beyond any help they may be able to provide (child care, if not regularly, in special circumstances), they may provide a real tangible mental health benefit compared to living in a new location where you know few if any people. Or what if you're providing help to that family member, and leaving would be problematic?

The bottom line is that is that some people are stuck in or around places like SF making very little compared to the cost of living in the area, but also don't feel like they are in a position they can leave. If you made $80k in SF and lived in SF or close enough to commute, you might find that a large portion of that goes purely to housing. For a family, probably $24k a year minimum, even if you commute in from an hour away.