It seems to me that this implicit and explicit balance change a lot faster than housing supply, tax policy, etc can keep up with. For example, several metros i

It seems to me that this implicit and explicit balance change a lot faster than housing supply, tax policy, etc can keep up with. For example, several metros in Texas growing 20% in the past decade vs Chicago decreasing in population. The folks that took up residence in DFW this decade got to take advantage of a high explicit benefit and a stable implicit benefit. Maybe in another 10 years that turns into NIMBYism, intolerable traffic, decline of industries that previously supplied a lot of jobs... reducing the implicit benefit. But DFW won't be able to change its fortunes quickly enough to recover that great implicit/explicit balance in such a climate, and then it'll be the new California. One way to look at it is an an arbitrage opportunity, where you as an individual or family can relocate much more quickly than a metro area can adjust to balance its implicit and explicit costs. I'd love to see a list like this of the best place to live for you right now, based on the things you value implicitly and explicitly.