I think that LA/SF/NYC is not the optimum location in you strategy. I remember seeing an analysis somewhere comparing salary/cost of living and size of city in

I think that LA/SF/NYC is not the optimum location in you strategy. I remember seeing an analysis somewhere comparing salary/cost of living and size of city in the US (I tried googling the original article but came up empty). Basically if you start in a little village then move to a small town your salary rises faster than the cost of living and so you end up slightly better off financially. Then if you move to a larger town you're slightly better off again. And so on as you move up in city size. This relationship holds except for at the very top, where the curve flattens off and drops slightly. You're actually slightly worse off in the banner cities like LA/SF/NYC. In other words you, as an individual, are paying a premium to live in those places. The sweet spot in the curve financially is the next tier of cities down. I suspect this curve might have some degree of regional variation and might be different in other countries too.