I live in Denver, I chose to live here, and I have much better opportunities than if I had stayed where I was before. I considered SF, and like the article sugg

I live in Denver, I chose to live here, and I have much better opportunities than if I had stayed where I was before. I considered SF, and like the article suggests, that might have been a better career move. If people want the best opportunity for their careers, they should move wherever that is. But not everyone is focused solely on making the most money, impact, or anything else that comes with a career. I moved here partially for my career, but also because I wanted to explore the outdoors, spend time outside in nature, take photos, and challenge myself physically while doing so. I don't think a big city would have provided that for me. I lived in NYC for a short period while I worked in the banking industry. It was great for my career, but I wasn't happy. I figured the same thing would happen if I moved to SF. I don't like big cities, I like tech, and I like doing things outdoors for fun. Denver allowed me to do that. SLC and Montana also would have fit the bill, but my SO did not approve. My point is that people should go where they think they will find happiness. What happiness means to each of us is different. But I can say that I am truly happy living where I do, and I don't ever plan on leaving the metro where I live now. Edit: The author only took into account cost of living and career opportunities, but not the individual that was making the decision and what matters to them. Which seems a bit narrow minded to me.