[freepor]

They don’t need to pay SF rates. 100K in Indianapolis buys you a way better standard of living than 200K in SF.

[beefalo]

The problem is that I've seen the pay difference be far larger than that. I worked in the midwest and people getting paid $100k moved to the bay area for $300k+

[sidlls]

No, it doesn't. Or, rather, it doesn't while also leaving the same amount of money for savings and discretionary spending: which is the same thing. It may get you a bigger house, but you pay for that in terms of opportunity (not just jobs, but savings, culture and recreation).

[pb7]

Only if you disregard things like weather, things to do, proximity to great nature, and maybe not even then.

[rootusrootus]

Maybe Indianopolis isn't the perfect example for everyone. Portland, perhaps. Better proximity to great nature, still a lot of things to do, great weather (and getting better every year thanks to climate change, while California gets drier and drier), somewhat lower cost of living, etc.

[freepor]

If you do that you also have to disregard the other myriad ways in which Indianapolis is a better place to live than SF.

[logfromblammo]

The weather in Indianapolis is tolerable most of the year.

Their biggest problem is that they are on Eastern time, despite being way too far west for it, observe DST, and start public schools way too early.

Also, they have developed traffic circle cancer all over their north side.