[chris08876]

It all comes with the trade off but this is just my view that when it comes to expensive states... there is a massive trade off but one that is risk based.

What I mean by that is that expensive states WHERE there are the high quality job sectors PUNISH stupid mistakes but reward those that stick it out and climb up the ladder.

They might not be friendly to folks starting out but once folks reach a certain income, it becomes reasonable. And especially with duel income aka husband or wife... or husband and husband... however folks do it.

So places like California, NYC, NJ or even Seattle... the opportunity is very much there. High and I mean high quality jobs... opportunity but due to supply and demand.... a ton of demand... it punishes stupid behavior. If one does not save and does not play their cards right... it can be tough to live, expense wise.

Two income earners making at least 80k a year... at least... IMO should be fine expense wise. All about budgeting. Especially if they are getting a 600k house or 700k house.

I'd imagine the optimal family income for California would be like 125k a year. Two folks making like 90k a year each should be fine. Its the same thing with NYC.

Without sounding like an elitist... I still think California and even NY and NJ should focus on making housing affordable. Because risk can sometimes be good but I believe the uprising of the masses in the long run is better for the state. The well being and financial security of the masses is very much in the long term interest of "X" state.