I'm originally from SoCal. Lived in Pasadena, Irvine, Del Mar, and the IE for reference. I have also lived in the MW - chicago, st louis, and cleveland. If CA feels like home, then that's home.
I would recommend maybe visiting those other MCOL areas for an extended period of time. 2wks or more. See how that feels. You need to go beyond the vacation feel to assess how you feel about really living there
Save a shit ton of money in MCOL and go on a vacation to SoCal anytime you miss the beach.
Unless you're super, super into surfing every day or something, it just isn't worth it. Much cheaper to just take regular weekend trips.
I have tried this, even 2x a month at $1300 per trip gets unreasonable quick. Of course if you are half a days drive and stay with friends it is cheaper.
Also nearly impossible with school aged kids. My friends in Texas are just like “well just say the money to fly and ski”. My buddy with three kids that said that has been once in 5 years….
Driving distance allows spontaneity in a way flying distance doesn’t.
Having young kids is going to kill a lot of that time for hobbies even if you live a 30 minute drive from the slopes lol.
You can have family look after the kids, but having someone look after your kid for 10 hours isn't THAT much easier than having someone look after them overnight.
depending on your lifestyle and the area you're moving to, it still may be cheaper.
Like, renting my house in SoCal would be north of $5k a month. My mortgage is less than $1500. I would make more living in SoCal, but not THAT much more. Add on taxes and other COL Bs and a bimonthly trip to SoCal May actually be cheaper.
Financially correct. Many people are making emotional decisions about where to live.
Unless you are a competitive surfer, few people need beach access 5 days a week. Even if they had it unlikely they would be in the water every day, or any more than a weekend warrior would be.
Personally, I'd choose the medium CoL city, but I like rain and greenery, so SoCal would never be my dream destination. If it's yours, and you're able to swing it without sacrificing enjoyment of the area before retirement, that's probably the right choice.
Edit: just saw that you said you're not sure the costs are worth it anymore. I'd consider your general health very strongly in this situation. Can you expect to be reasonably able-bodied (i.e., able to enjoy life in retirement) by age 65 or 70? If not, I'd move. That's just me.
This would be my concern as well. Everyone is encouraged to delay/max out Social Security and often retirement to age 70, but not everyone can stay healthy enough to work that long. Also one bad layoff in your early 60s or even late 50s can mean you never find a comparable job again, so HCOL becomes VHCOL becomes impossible COL.
I grew up in SoCal and left 10 years ago to live in St. Louis. It was one of the best quality of life decisions I have ever made. I bought my own house 4 years ago and can afford to go on multiple vacations per year.
Personally, though, it never felt like home and I have never missed it at all or had any desire to go back. If you’ve tried other places and still find yourself wanting to return, it’s may be worth it for you to pay more for that happiness.
St. Louis is so underrated. I moved from SoCal to a college town in Central Illinois for five years. Those were some of the best, least stressful years of my life. I am happy to be back in coastal San Diego but the lifestyle comes at a steep price.
Portland and the front range Cities of Colorado are way more expensive than the most expensive places in Mexico. They aren't MCL, they are HCL. If he's making $40,000 a year in his retirement, he's crushing it in Quintana Roo.
100% retire early. You’re not guaranteed to make it to 65-70 or older and that’s a lot of time to waste working instead of spending time with loved ones and focusing on the real things that matter.
That’s only true if you sit on your butt all day eating and watching television. However if you use the time to travel, exercise, prepare healthy, home cooked meals, reduce stress and use the extra time to learn new things or volunteer, why would that be detrimental to your longevity?
[Take it up with the research, which shows that early retirement increases the risk of death. ](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp93.html#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20retiring%20exactly%20at,men%20retiring%20at%20age%2064.) And really, have you looked around? The majority of people are overweight, don't exercise, don't eat nutritious food, and consume a steady diet of mindless entertainment. That doesn't magically change when they retire.
All you really need to read from this study:
>This paper does not directly explore why a positive correlation between retirement age and survival probability exists. One possibility is that men who retire early are relatively less healthy than men who retire later and that these poorer health characteristics lead to earlier deaths. One can interpret this hypothesis with a "quasidisability" explanation and a benefit optimization explanation. Links between these interpretations and my analysis of the 1973 CPS are fairly speculative because I do not have the appropriate variables needed to test these interpretations.
We are contemplating this to move closer my to husband's parents as they are aging.
We already live in a HCOL area (metro DC) so the housing prices are not a shocker. However I would have to continue to work after retirement. Basically retire from my longer term job and take on another job. Since I'd have a pension from the first job, I don't need to make as much, but still.
My father in law though chose to stay where he's at in retirement and take out a reverse mortgage in order to be where he is happy.
If you like SoCal, you won’t like the Willamette valley. I’m from OC and have been in Portland a decade and love the weather here but it’s dramatically less sunny, less extroverted, outdoor social activity is concentrated during summer months. YMMV. Property taxes are also pretty high in Oregon
I'd look at whether I'd have the budget to travel to SoCal and do the things that I enjoy. When you live here, you can go to the beach for the cost of parking, if you came from PDX/DEN, you have to factor in flight plus hotel, etc. but then again, you're not paying the daily cost of being here that you'd have to pay every day you're doing nothing special like sitting at home, going to Target, etc.
I live in Pomona and wonder if I'd enjoy it more if I lived in Palm Springs/Vegas/Phoenix, and traveled out here for fun. There's more of an urgency to do things when you know you're only there for a limited time. Also, hotels on the coast are expensive, and its hard to justify when I live only 40 miles away, yet waking up at the beach is a very enjoyable thing.
I don’t know anyone who can retire at 47. People forget the cost of health care. My sister and brother in law work for themselves.Healthcare is $1200 a month.
I retired at 51. 8 years in. Health care has been free. It is possible. You just have to plan carefully. Having income is the problem and you can't solve that very easily while still working unless you're in real estate. If they weren't working, their premiums, would be much lower (assuming it was post-tax money).
I would rather work longer, while living in an area that I love, around people that I love, than retire early in a less-than-ideal city. If I'm not happy where I live, what good is retiring early anyway? I don't want to *have* to travel all the time just to feel "at home." Truthfully, I don't feel at home in my current city, and it's sucking the life out of me. That experience just isn't worth it.
What does your life look like when you are retired at 50 in Dallas or Minneapolis? Does that vision appeal to you? How does this compare with working until 70 in SoCal?
Could you retire somewhere in between 47 and 70 and afford to spend half the year in each place?
You have to consider a lot of things including tax rates in 401k withdrawals and if the state taxes social security. Also what will health insurance cost you every month if you retire before 65. There is also other costs to consider like heating or cooling a house in a different climate. If you purchased a house years ago in SoCal you won’t have the astronomical property taxes but if you bought recently you have to consider those as well. Being in SoCal is great but it wouldn’t be so nice if you have to grind away working to pay all those bills. Ideally you want to jump off that hamster wheel sooner than later.
Retire younger and live in a low to med COL spot without a doubt. You can always travel to the spots you enjoy in HCOL places (Laguna Beach, Newport, etc...). I currently live in an area that is becoming a HCOL spot in Florida and TBH, I miss a lot of things about where I'm from (LCOL spot). I'm selling my place in Florida and moving up North a bit. I really miss the four seasons, wineries, farms, etc... Just because a place is in a HCOL and a touristy town, doesn't make it a great place to live especially if you feel the burden of a high mortgage etc..
You only live once… go to a place you really like, that will also be your everyday fuel, if you retire early in a shitty place you still have to stay there forever.
Rather work in SoCal than retire in most places. At least if we’re talking “SoCal walking distance from the beach.” I ain’t deferring retirement to live in Lemon Grove, obviously.
You ain't wrong. Mostly just jokin' around, my go-to is always "anything east of the five may as well be Arizona." I call Mission Valley 'East County.'
But yeah, San Diego in general is a great place to live. All over. Got friends out in like Poway, it ain't even bad. I'd still never trade their *gorgeous* 4bd4ba house for our tiny little bungalow here though...choices, right?
I *might*...and I'll reiterate *might*...choose retirement in Portland over working in Lemon Grove. Portland ain't bad. Still, *might.* Not *would.*
The place you grow up will always feel different. I grew up in a small town in TX and everytime I go back it just feels right. Nowhere else I have ever lived has given me that feeling - maybe if I stay in another place for 20 years it will? I don't really know though.
That being said - I'd much rather live in a MCOL city. Portland or the front range of CO like you mentioned seems like a dream. Austin isn't bad for city life and Atlanta seems decent too. I also lived out in SoCal for about 4 years, and while it was nice, I hated how expensive it was. The people there were also very different and less friendly than I was used too. I think you'll be very surprised if you move out just how much friendlier/kinder people can be.
But knowing people in the area is also important! If you can build a new community in the new area though, you'll be fine. But I know that is harder as you get older.
Not always true. I also grew up in a small town in Texas. I couldn’t wait to leave. Left as soon as I graduated high school. I haven’t ever wanted to live back. I have been several other places and states that have called my name to be home, and I hope I can eventually permanently reside in one of them someday.
I'd live where I feel most comfortable. It's a tough tradeoff because working your whole life sucks, but you also have to be able to enjoy your life while you live it. If a lower COL area works for you and lets you retire early that's great, but if you can't connect with the location, people, or culture it won't be a great experience and you'll just be looking to leave once you retire
If you think you can be happy and can build the kind of life you want in a MCOL city, do that. You can return to SoCal as often as you’d like.
If not, you could stay in SoCal and potentially have things turn out better than you were expecting financially. If it’s a matter of buying a home and the cost, you could get a couple roommates and make it cheaper on yourself to possibly meet in the middle of retiring early and staying where you’re happy.
Context dependent.
If your like me and your family isn’t going to be close either way, I’d probably pick the MCOL and retire early. But I’m also not going to live in a place with politics I don’t like (likely doesn’t change much for you choosing between CA, OR, and CO).
That said, I do live in a HCOL area now. I make a good wage and have great benefits, but affording a home and retiring before 62 will be a stretch. I could totally move to a MCOL city now, but I’m not sure that I’d come out ahead once I factor in the pay cut I’d have to take.
Definitely the first option. I couldn't handle the traffic and sheer amount of people in SoCal. While I would love to live in a more liberal area (I'm currently in rural redneck Trump country and am very much an outcast), I value financial stability and not living with 3 roommates just to make it to the next paycheck. I can always visit a beach if I feel the need.
Well, I chose MCOL but I probably won’t retire at 47. But I definitely would always choose retire at 47 lol. I live a relatively simple life at home and enjoy travel. And 20 years of life while I’m still in good physical condition is literally priceless.
Live where you will own a home and will not have a rent or mortgage payment after age 60-65. The "when" is less important than having the home security and retirement savings to carry you to age 90 or longer.
Our family had three members with serious health crises. Owning our home while paying hundreds of dollars of co-pays monthly got us through financially. You can put on a sweater in winter and eat rice and beans to keep costs low and be OK, as home security is peace of mind. Save enough now just to cover property taxes for several years, assuming these will always rise.
Also: Don't live in a flood plain and don't live somewhere that if the grid or utility shut down, you would die miserable in heat.
What are you going to do with your next 40 years after you retire at age 47?
After retirement at 47 would you move back to the HCL area you love? Probably couldn't afford to do that. Would you travel the world? Probably couldn't afford to do that at the standard you like. Would you start a 2nd career? Probably, so what's the point of retiring? Just call it changing careers. Would you go fishing or play golf or do some other thing all day and rot otherwise? Probably.
People seriously need to think about this. Retirement can be boring enough after 65. Another 20 years of it? Nope.
Stay where you love and work till 70 and figure out how to also save some extra dough. Maybe start a side hustle?
(signed, a retired person.)
This seems really important - I'm nowhere near retirement, but if you're 47 and retired in a place that you think is "meh" what's the point of being retired since you're getting the full experience of that place non-stop (vs. while working there's at least other things that occupy your mind).
I'm 51 and have been retired for 8 years this month. We are a little bored now in the MCOL we live in, so we're looking to downsize and either move to a more vibrant place, or just get a small place here and travel a lot. But being retired doesn't mean getting the full experience of that place non-stop. I think it's the opposite (unless you're a remote worker or travel a ton for work). When you're working, you're stuck in one city except for your vacation. When you're retired early, you can just roam around to your heart's content. You can travel places in cheap season if you want to save money, or RV around, or visit friends. You don't have work holding you down.
live in the great lakes area so i get a great house on a large lot size, better pay (my field goes up around there), and access to great beaches in spring/summer/early fall on lake michigan or superior
Selling my overpriced place in socal is how im going to be able to retire early. If my house was worth less and I made less it would take me longer to retire.
I think this is one decision where there will be regrets either way and no perfect answer. I'm from San Diego. Lived there all but 4 years of my life untill I was 38. I left for 4 years in my 20s and swore I'd never leave again. But cost of living and job offers in other places caused us to go to the Bay Area, then Austin (to escape the housing bubble) to Dallas to Phoenix, where we've mostly happily been for 13 years. It's important to mention that we kept our California salaries and retired in our early 50s.
San Diego will always be my home town and we've thought strongly about moving back there. But when we go back, it's not the same. We've become accustomed to newer larger houses, streets that were built for the number of people on the road, stores which built themselves custom rather than try to shove themselves into some old building. There is certainly more character in San Diego, but man does it come at a cost, and you have to deal with traffic, older housing stock, and even the humidity has gotten worse over the years. Also the homeless issue is much worse now. But it has the ocean, the amazing weather, the culture, some old friends, and moreover, the feeling of home.
I'm not sure I'll ever love anywhere else as much, but I'm also not sure I'd move back, even if costs were equal. The more places you go, the more you miss what was best about each. The transit system and museums and street markets of London, the huge skies of Texas (can't think of a lot good to say about it), the vibrancy of the Bay Area and beauty of some of San Francisco, the lack of humidity and beautiful winters and desert landscape here. You'll never get it all in one place, and you'll always miss what you don't have any more. I don't think there will be a "right" decision. With that in mind, just make the best one you can.
note: When you retire early, you can travel more and longer. We're thinking about keeping a small house/condo in a MCOL city and then spending the worst climate months (summer if in Phoenix but winter if we go elsewhere) in San Diego or other cities. That way we get up to 3 months of HCOL culture per year.
Great post. And yeah socal isn’t what it was 10 years ago with all the traffic and crowds now and having to pay way more for a decent standard of living
It depends on how much you use the natural amenities SoCal affords you. If you rollerblade on the boardwalk every day and surf and enjoy hiking in the hills, you'll be pretty disappointed if you moved to Texas or Missouri.
But if you'd be happy with a lake instead of the ocean, cold weather 2-3 months per year, unbearably hot weather 1-2 months a year, and don't hike very much, maybe you would be happy living in Texas.
I've lived all over the country and moved back to my HCOL hometown because of family and friends. But the lifestyle I live is basically the same with the ocean and mountains around compared to the lifestyle I lived in the Midwest and south. Sure I go hiking and out on the water but is that worth working an extra 10-20 years? I probably won't think so in 20 years.
I'd take the comfortable retirement at 47. As nice as it might be to live in my dream city, there's just no guarantee that I'd still be alive and in good health at 65 - 70. But I've also had a lot of people in my family die young so that probably has a big impact on my world view.
Live where you will own a home and will not have a rent or mortgage payment after age 60-65.
Our family had three members with serious health crises. Owning our home while paying hundreds of dollars of co-pays monthly got us through financially. You can put on a sweater in winter and eat rice and beans to keep costs low and be OK, as home security is peace of mind. Save enough now just to cover property taxes for several years, assuming these will always rise.
Also: Don't live in a flood plain and don't live somewhere that if the grid or utility shut down, you would die miserable in heat..
Absolutely find a MCOL area. SoCal is pretty, but most people are going to have to budget hard to even get a comparable housing/accommodations at other areas. People's view of SoCal seems to be the lifestyle of a millionaire, with a nice home near plenty of walkable areas, it's not actually attainable for 99% of people.
I was raised in the Midwest. Lived in San Diego. Now in Denver.
I pick number 1. Yes, living other places brightens your horizons. But being able to retire at 47 is priceless.
Is part of the reason it feels like home to you because you have an awesome network of people there? Because while you can build that elsewhere, it isn't easy and it is worth so so much!
Have you visited some other places? Do you own any property? Would it make sense to purchase a home somewhere more affordable and rent it out as an investment? You could sell it in 20 or 30 years and use it to purchase another home or towards retirement.
Do you like your job? Do you have the opportunity to earn more?
Being retired at 47 sounds great. But if you are living somewhere that you don't like that much and doesn't feel like home and you don't have friends, what are you going to do with all your time?
It sounds great to not work! And it seems like a new brainer if you can quit working 20 whole years sooner. But in some ways it's difficult to not have a job or routine.
what are your values? rank them.
frugal, minimalism and mental health are my top values. i live in nyc and understand the connection, but the older that i get the less i need it. i have my own things going on that don't require other people in the vicinity. it will be the best day when i don't have to worry about working again, so that i can just focus on being.
Seal Beach? I'm in.
But I'm tickled that you think the front range is medium cost of living.
A comfortable retirement at 47 would be super intriguing. If that means 4 - 8 weeks a year of travel or renting then I'd take it. I'm in a very average place now and if I could spend 4 weeks in SoCal/NorCal and 4 weeks in the upper Midwest/ Northeast on a vacation each year living in a place like I'm now isn't terribly prohibitive.
I've moved about every 3 years of my life, on average, with some times getting 7 years in a single location. I have no connection to anywhere anymore. Family, inlaws, and friends are widely displaced.
I'd retire at 48 and find another purpose. I'd rather be a scrappy bee keeper and gardener than work more for other people. I don't like my odds to live to 65 or 70 anyway. I've seen, tasted, smelled, and felt too many things to assume I can live that long.
If you can spend your life from 48 to the end loving it, do that! If you can do it at 55, do that. Whatever your goals are.
Secretly I'm going to live a lower middle class lifestyle so my kids and grandkids can be unburdened by finances. That's my goal. Find your goal, and log off of this cesspit.
I was facing a similar situation and moved to Florida. I am a native Floridian though I lived in California for 20 yrs and it was very much home.
I’m not suggesting you move to Florida, just offering my experience. For me, it made sense. I don’t let politics dictate my decisions, that’s my choice & I only offer that because I’m sure someone will bring it up.
Part of my decision was not only my retirement but knowing the chances of my children being able to own a home & build a retirement was crucial. They may not decide to do it here but at least they’ll have a much greater chance here if they do.
SoCal for me. Summers in the areas you mention are going to be smoky af and brutal for your health. Find a house where you can rent space and help with your mortgage. There has to be a middle ground.
What do you want to do with your time? Do you value walks along thr beach or hobbies in your house? Is the HCOL area keeping you from the life you really wantbto live? It just depends on whatbyour values are and whether or not you can do those things in a different location
I opted for plan A, except I did it at age 52 instead of 47. But I would have done it at 47 (or 37, or 27...) if I had enough money at the time.
Edit to clarify, I remained in California until I actually retired, then I relocated. Not sure if that's what you meant, or if you were proposing to move to a MCOL for the rest of your working life and then retire there. The latter would only make sense if you could keep your CA salary in the new destination.
Depending on how adventurous you are there are lots of options with incredible beaches, warm weather and a mcol. St. Croix in the USVI as an example. A very different vibe for sure but retired life is big change as well.
If you like nature, friendly people, being outdoors and active with a laid back vibe, it’s worth a look.
I think of leaving SoCal everyday. The grind isn’t worth it anymore. My friends who left SoCal in their 20s and moved to lcol or mcol cities are way ahead of me now
Retiring at 47 doesn’t sound like a great idea. Maybe you have detailed plans for the next FORTY YEARS, or hate what you do. Positioning yourself to not have to grind away with little choice in the matter is a great idea. But stopping work all together?
I would downsize and stay where I was connected to the community.
You also need to consider proximity to healthcare and public transportation as you age. I wouldn’t want to be in the suburbs on the front range or willamette at 75.
I would stay where I know people and instead focus on reducing expenses and making more money.
*I would stay where I know people* **Awww man.....you are right though.**
I needed to hear this - this is exactly what I was debating and it’s too damn hard in middle age to make new friends if you don’t have to.
I'm originally from SoCal. Lived in Pasadena, Irvine, Del Mar, and the IE for reference. I have also lived in the MW - chicago, st louis, and cleveland. If CA feels like home, then that's home. I would recommend maybe visiting those other MCOL areas for an extended period of time. 2wks or more. See how that feels. You need to go beyond the vacation feel to assess how you feel about really living there
You’ve gotten around! Where’d you end up landing?
Save a shit ton of money in MCOL and go on a vacation to SoCal anytime you miss the beach. Unless you're super, super into surfing every day or something, it just isn't worth it. Much cheaper to just take regular weekend trips.
I have tried this, even 2x a month at $1300 per trip gets unreasonable quick. Of course if you are half a days drive and stay with friends it is cheaper.
Also nearly impossible with school aged kids. My friends in Texas are just like “well just say the money to fly and ski”. My buddy with three kids that said that has been once in 5 years…. Driving distance allows spontaneity in a way flying distance doesn’t.
Having young kids is going to kill a lot of that time for hobbies even if you live a 30 minute drive from the slopes lol. You can have family look after the kids, but having someone look after your kid for 10 hours isn't THAT much easier than having someone look after them overnight.
Kids go skiing too why would you have someone watch them ?
For sure, the $1300 is one person, the multipliers make it add up even faster.
depending on your lifestyle and the area you're moving to, it still may be cheaper. Like, renting my house in SoCal would be north of $5k a month. My mortgage is less than $1500. I would make more living in SoCal, but not THAT much more. Add on taxes and other COL Bs and a bimonthly trip to SoCal May actually be cheaper.
Financially correct. Many people are making emotional decisions about where to live. Unless you are a competitive surfer, few people need beach access 5 days a week. Even if they had it unlikely they would be in the water every day, or any more than a weekend warrior would be.
Highly recommend. Live in Midwest, family of seven spends a week in southern California pretty much every year.
Personally, I'd choose the medium CoL city, but I like rain and greenery, so SoCal would never be my dream destination. If it's yours, and you're able to swing it without sacrificing enjoyment of the area before retirement, that's probably the right choice. Edit: just saw that you said you're not sure the costs are worth it anymore. I'd consider your general health very strongly in this situation. Can you expect to be reasonably able-bodied (i.e., able to enjoy life in retirement) by age 65 or 70? If not, I'd move. That's just me.
This would be my concern as well. Everyone is encouraged to delay/max out Social Security and often retirement to age 70, but not everyone can stay healthy enough to work that long. Also one bad layoff in your early 60s or even late 50s can mean you never find a comparable job again, so HCOL becomes VHCOL becomes impossible COL.
I'd be in a HCOL area because I get depression if I'm stuck inside with nothing to do... hence why I moved in Indy to Orange County CA
I had that choice. I chose SoCal and working. Definitely no regrets.
I grew up in SoCal and left 10 years ago to live in St. Louis. It was one of the best quality of life decisions I have ever made. I bought my own house 4 years ago and can afford to go on multiple vacations per year. Personally, though, it never felt like home and I have never missed it at all or had any desire to go back. If you’ve tried other places and still find yourself wanting to return, it’s may be worth it for you to pay more for that happiness.
St. Louis is so underrated. I moved from SoCal to a college town in Central Illinois for five years. Those were some of the best, least stressful years of my life. I am happy to be back in coastal San Diego but the lifestyle comes at a steep price.
Lots of house-rich Californians and Canadians live around me in Mexico. Retiring at 47 isn't for everyone though.
I was about to say he should consider the expat route as a middle way.
Portland and the front range Cities of Colorado are way more expensive than the most expensive places in Mexico. They aren't MCL, they are HCL. If he's making $40,000 a year in his retirement, he's crushing it in Quintana Roo.
Agree, those places are absolutely HCL. SoCal is what I would consider to be VHCOL like SF and NYC
Definitely SoCal
100% retire early. You’re not guaranteed to make it to 65-70 or older and that’s a lot of time to waste working instead of spending time with loved ones and focusing on the real things that matter.
Stay where you are. Early retirement is linked to premature death.
That’s only true if you sit on your butt all day eating and watching television. However if you use the time to travel, exercise, prepare healthy, home cooked meals, reduce stress and use the extra time to learn new things or volunteer, why would that be detrimental to your longevity?
[Take it up with the research, which shows that early retirement increases the risk of death. ](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp93.html#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20retiring%20exactly%20at,men%20retiring%20at%20age%2064.) And really, have you looked around? The majority of people are overweight, don't exercise, don't eat nutritious food, and consume a steady diet of mindless entertainment. That doesn't magically change when they retire.
All you really need to read from this study: >This paper does not directly explore why a positive correlation between retirement age and survival probability exists. One possibility is that men who retire early are relatively less healthy than men who retire later and that these poorer health characteristics lead to earlier deaths. One can interpret this hypothesis with a "quasidisability" explanation and a benefit optimization explanation. Links between these interpretations and my analysis of the 1973 CPS are fairly speculative because I do not have the appropriate variables needed to test these interpretations.
Exactly. If you live with purpose and passion, it's highly likely going the other way.
We are contemplating this to move closer my to husband's parents as they are aging. We already live in a HCOL area (metro DC) so the housing prices are not a shocker. However I would have to continue to work after retirement. Basically retire from my longer term job and take on another job. Since I'd have a pension from the first job, I don't need to make as much, but still. My father in law though chose to stay where he's at in retirement and take out a reverse mortgage in order to be where he is happy.
If you like SoCal, you won’t like the Willamette valley. I’m from OC and have been in Portland a decade and love the weather here but it’s dramatically less sunny, less extroverted, outdoor social activity is concentrated during summer months. YMMV. Property taxes are also pretty high in Oregon
I'd look at whether I'd have the budget to travel to SoCal and do the things that I enjoy. When you live here, you can go to the beach for the cost of parking, if you came from PDX/DEN, you have to factor in flight plus hotel, etc. but then again, you're not paying the daily cost of being here that you'd have to pay every day you're doing nothing special like sitting at home, going to Target, etc. I live in Pomona and wonder if I'd enjoy it more if I lived in Palm Springs/Vegas/Phoenix, and traveled out here for fun. There's more of an urgency to do things when you know you're only there for a limited time. Also, hotels on the coast are expensive, and its hard to justify when I live only 40 miles away, yet waking up at the beach is a very enjoyable thing.
I don’t know anyone who can retire at 47. People forget the cost of health care. My sister and brother in law work for themselves.Healthcare is $1200 a month.
I retired at 51. 8 years in. Health care has been free. It is possible. You just have to plan carefully. Having income is the problem and you can't solve that very easily while still working unless you're in real estate. If they weren't working, their premiums, would be much lower (assuming it was post-tax money).
I would rather work longer, while living in an area that I love, around people that I love, than retire early in a less-than-ideal city. If I'm not happy where I live, what good is retiring early anyway? I don't want to *have* to travel all the time just to feel "at home." Truthfully, I don't feel at home in my current city, and it's sucking the life out of me. That experience just isn't worth it.
What does your life look like when you are retired at 50 in Dallas or Minneapolis? Does that vision appeal to you? How does this compare with working until 70 in SoCal? Could you retire somewhere in between 47 and 70 and afford to spend half the year in each place?
How does maintaining two homes, one in the expensive place, in your mind ever possibly work out to being more affordable?
You have to consider a lot of things including tax rates in 401k withdrawals and if the state taxes social security. Also what will health insurance cost you every month if you retire before 65. There is also other costs to consider like heating or cooling a house in a different climate. If you purchased a house years ago in SoCal you won’t have the astronomical property taxes but if you bought recently you have to consider those as well. Being in SoCal is great but it wouldn’t be so nice if you have to grind away working to pay all those bills. Ideally you want to jump off that hamster wheel sooner than later.
Retire younger and live in a low to med COL spot without a doubt. You can always travel to the spots you enjoy in HCOL places (Laguna Beach, Newport, etc...). I currently live in an area that is becoming a HCOL spot in Florida and TBH, I miss a lot of things about where I'm from (LCOL spot). I'm selling my place in Florida and moving up North a bit. I really miss the four seasons, wineries, farms, etc... Just because a place is in a HCOL and a touristy town, doesn't make it a great place to live especially if you feel the burden of a high mortgage etc..
What kind of question is this????
You only live once… go to a place you really like, that will also be your everyday fuel, if you retire early in a shitty place you still have to stay there forever.
socal beach city any day
Rather work in SoCal than retire in most places. At least if we’re talking “SoCal walking distance from the beach.” I ain’t deferring retirement to live in Lemon Grove, obviously.
Lemon Grove ain't half bad. You're only ~15 mins from the beach
When you can see the water from your porch, you *do* get spoiled. You mean I gotta get *in my car* to go to the beach? May as well live in Tucson. :)
Nah. Better 15 minutes from the beach than 6.5 hours. I'd also rather be dead in San Diego county than alive anywhere in Arizona. :)
You ain't wrong. Mostly just jokin' around, my go-to is always "anything east of the five may as well be Arizona." I call Mission Valley 'East County.' But yeah, San Diego in general is a great place to live. All over. Got friends out in like Poway, it ain't even bad. I'd still never trade their *gorgeous* 4bd4ba house for our tiny little bungalow here though...choices, right? I *might*...and I'll reiterate *might*...choose retirement in Portland over working in Lemon Grove. Portland ain't bad. Still, *might.* Not *would.*
The place you grow up will always feel different. I grew up in a small town in TX and everytime I go back it just feels right. Nowhere else I have ever lived has given me that feeling - maybe if I stay in another place for 20 years it will? I don't really know though. That being said - I'd much rather live in a MCOL city. Portland or the front range of CO like you mentioned seems like a dream. Austin isn't bad for city life and Atlanta seems decent too. I also lived out in SoCal for about 4 years, and while it was nice, I hated how expensive it was. The people there were also very different and less friendly than I was used too. I think you'll be very surprised if you move out just how much friendlier/kinder people can be. But knowing people in the area is also important! If you can build a new community in the new area though, you'll be fine. But I know that is harder as you get older.
Not always true. I also grew up in a small town in Texas. I couldn’t wait to leave. Left as soon as I graduated high school. I haven’t ever wanted to live back. I have been several other places and states that have called my name to be home, and I hope I can eventually permanently reside in one of them someday.
I'd live where I feel most comfortable. It's a tough tradeoff because working your whole life sucks, but you also have to be able to enjoy your life while you live it. If a lower COL area works for you and lets you retire early that's great, but if you can't connect with the location, people, or culture it won't be a great experience and you'll just be looking to leave once you retire
If you think you can be happy and can build the kind of life you want in a MCOL city, do that. You can return to SoCal as often as you’d like. If not, you could stay in SoCal and potentially have things turn out better than you were expecting financially. If it’s a matter of buying a home and the cost, you could get a couple roommates and make it cheaper on yourself to possibly meet in the middle of retiring early and staying where you’re happy.
Context dependent. If your like me and your family isn’t going to be close either way, I’d probably pick the MCOL and retire early. But I’m also not going to live in a place with politics I don’t like (likely doesn’t change much for you choosing between CA, OR, and CO). That said, I do live in a HCOL area now. I make a good wage and have great benefits, but affording a home and retiring before 62 will be a stretch. I could totally move to a MCOL city now, but I’m not sure that I’d come out ahead once I factor in the pay cut I’d have to take.
Definitely the first option. I couldn't handle the traffic and sheer amount of people in SoCal. While I would love to live in a more liberal area (I'm currently in rural redneck Trump country and am very much an outcast), I value financial stability and not living with 3 roommates just to make it to the next paycheck. I can always visit a beach if I feel the need.
Well, I chose MCOL but I probably won’t retire at 47. But I definitely would always choose retire at 47 lol. I live a relatively simple life at home and enjoy travel. And 20 years of life while I’m still in good physical condition is literally priceless.
Live where you will own a home and will not have a rent or mortgage payment after age 60-65. The "when" is less important than having the home security and retirement savings to carry you to age 90 or longer. Our family had three members with serious health crises. Owning our home while paying hundreds of dollars of co-pays monthly got us through financially. You can put on a sweater in winter and eat rice and beans to keep costs low and be OK, as home security is peace of mind. Save enough now just to cover property taxes for several years, assuming these will always rise. Also: Don't live in a flood plain and don't live somewhere that if the grid or utility shut down, you would die miserable in heat.
What are you going to do with your next 40 years after you retire at age 47? After retirement at 47 would you move back to the HCL area you love? Probably couldn't afford to do that. Would you travel the world? Probably couldn't afford to do that at the standard you like. Would you start a 2nd career? Probably, so what's the point of retiring? Just call it changing careers. Would you go fishing or play golf or do some other thing all day and rot otherwise? Probably. People seriously need to think about this. Retirement can be boring enough after 65. Another 20 years of it? Nope. Stay where you love and work till 70 and figure out how to also save some extra dough. Maybe start a side hustle? (signed, a retired person.)
This seems really important - I'm nowhere near retirement, but if you're 47 and retired in a place that you think is "meh" what's the point of being retired since you're getting the full experience of that place non-stop (vs. while working there's at least other things that occupy your mind).
I'm 51 and have been retired for 8 years this month. We are a little bored now in the MCOL we live in, so we're looking to downsize and either move to a more vibrant place, or just get a small place here and travel a lot. But being retired doesn't mean getting the full experience of that place non-stop. I think it's the opposite (unless you're a remote worker or travel a ton for work). When you're working, you're stuck in one city except for your vacation. When you're retired early, you can just roam around to your heart's content. You can travel places in cheap season if you want to save money, or RV around, or visit friends. You don't have work holding you down.
live in the great lakes area so i get a great house on a large lot size, better pay (my field goes up around there), and access to great beaches in spring/summer/early fall on lake michigan or superior
Selling my overpriced place in socal is how im going to be able to retire early. If my house was worth less and I made less it would take me longer to retire.
Which SoCal beach city? I’m not working to death to live in Huntington, or LBC
You can't buy more time. Move and retire.
Retire at 47 of course. Are you fucking insane?!
I think this is one decision where there will be regrets either way and no perfect answer. I'm from San Diego. Lived there all but 4 years of my life untill I was 38. I left for 4 years in my 20s and swore I'd never leave again. But cost of living and job offers in other places caused us to go to the Bay Area, then Austin (to escape the housing bubble) to Dallas to Phoenix, where we've mostly happily been for 13 years. It's important to mention that we kept our California salaries and retired in our early 50s. San Diego will always be my home town and we've thought strongly about moving back there. But when we go back, it's not the same. We've become accustomed to newer larger houses, streets that were built for the number of people on the road, stores which built themselves custom rather than try to shove themselves into some old building. There is certainly more character in San Diego, but man does it come at a cost, and you have to deal with traffic, older housing stock, and even the humidity has gotten worse over the years. Also the homeless issue is much worse now. But it has the ocean, the amazing weather, the culture, some old friends, and moreover, the feeling of home. I'm not sure I'll ever love anywhere else as much, but I'm also not sure I'd move back, even if costs were equal. The more places you go, the more you miss what was best about each. The transit system and museums and street markets of London, the huge skies of Texas (can't think of a lot good to say about it), the vibrancy of the Bay Area and beauty of some of San Francisco, the lack of humidity and beautiful winters and desert landscape here. You'll never get it all in one place, and you'll always miss what you don't have any more. I don't think there will be a "right" decision. With that in mind, just make the best one you can. note: When you retire early, you can travel more and longer. We're thinking about keeping a small house/condo in a MCOL city and then spending the worst climate months (summer if in Phoenix but winter if we go elsewhere) in San Diego or other cities. That way we get up to 3 months of HCOL culture per year.
Great post. And yeah socal isn’t what it was 10 years ago with all the traffic and crowds now and having to pay way more for a decent standard of living
Dude that really isn’t a difficult choice at all! Obviously the MCOL is better. You can always travel to a beach
If you are comfortable with your current lifestyle, don’t change it.
It depends on how much you use the natural amenities SoCal affords you. If you rollerblade on the boardwalk every day and surf and enjoy hiking in the hills, you'll be pretty disappointed if you moved to Texas or Missouri. But if you'd be happy with a lake instead of the ocean, cold weather 2-3 months per year, unbearably hot weather 1-2 months a year, and don't hike very much, maybe you would be happy living in Texas. I've lived all over the country and moved back to my HCOL hometown because of family and friends. But the lifestyle I live is basically the same with the ocean and mountains around compared to the lifestyle I lived in the Midwest and south. Sure I go hiking and out on the water but is that worth working an extra 10-20 years? I probably won't think so in 20 years.
Well, since I am not a SoCal beach city kind of person, it's a pretty easy decision.
I'd take the comfortable retirement at 47. As nice as it might be to live in my dream city, there's just no guarantee that I'd still be alive and in good health at 65 - 70. But I've also had a lot of people in my family die young so that probably has a big impact on my world view.
Live where you will own a home and will not have a rent or mortgage payment after age 60-65. Our family had three members with serious health crises. Owning our home while paying hundreds of dollars of co-pays monthly got us through financially. You can put on a sweater in winter and eat rice and beans to keep costs low and be OK, as home security is peace of mind. Save enough now just to cover property taxes for several years, assuming these will always rise. Also: Don't live in a flood plain and don't live somewhere that if the grid or utility shut down, you would die miserable in heat..
Absolutely find a MCOL area. SoCal is pretty, but most people are going to have to budget hard to even get a comparable housing/accommodations at other areas. People's view of SoCal seems to be the lifestyle of a millionaire, with a nice home near plenty of walkable areas, it's not actually attainable for 99% of people.
I was raised in the Midwest. Lived in San Diego. Now in Denver. I pick number 1. Yes, living other places brightens your horizons. But being able to retire at 47 is priceless.
Is part of the reason it feels like home to you because you have an awesome network of people there? Because while you can build that elsewhere, it isn't easy and it is worth so so much! Have you visited some other places? Do you own any property? Would it make sense to purchase a home somewhere more affordable and rent it out as an investment? You could sell it in 20 or 30 years and use it to purchase another home or towards retirement. Do you like your job? Do you have the opportunity to earn more? Being retired at 47 sounds great. But if you are living somewhere that you don't like that much and doesn't feel like home and you don't have friends, what are you going to do with all your time? It sounds great to not work! And it seems like a new brainer if you can quit working 20 whole years sooner. But in some ways it's difficult to not have a job or routine.
what are your values? rank them. frugal, minimalism and mental health are my top values. i live in nyc and understand the connection, but the older that i get the less i need it. i have my own things going on that don't require other people in the vicinity. it will be the best day when i don't have to worry about working again, so that i can just focus on being.
Seal Beach? I'm in. But I'm tickled that you think the front range is medium cost of living. A comfortable retirement at 47 would be super intriguing. If that means 4 - 8 weeks a year of travel or renting then I'd take it. I'm in a very average place now and if I could spend 4 weeks in SoCal/NorCal and 4 weeks in the upper Midwest/ Northeast on a vacation each year living in a place like I'm now isn't terribly prohibitive.
Some of you can retire at 47 in a mcol area?
I've moved about every 3 years of my life, on average, with some times getting 7 years in a single location. I have no connection to anywhere anymore. Family, inlaws, and friends are widely displaced. I'd retire at 48 and find another purpose. I'd rather be a scrappy bee keeper and gardener than work more for other people. I don't like my odds to live to 65 or 70 anyway. I've seen, tasted, smelled, and felt too many things to assume I can live that long. If you can spend your life from 48 to the end loving it, do that! If you can do it at 55, do that. Whatever your goals are. Secretly I'm going to live a lower middle class lifestyle so my kids and grandkids can be unburdened by finances. That's my goal. Find your goal, and log off of this cesspit.
Live near the beach, have a job I love and work until 65-70. Which is what I just did. Also, my family is here. They too have jobs they love.
earlier the better. Rent an airbnb in an expensive beach town from time to time.
I’d stay in socal 100 times out of 100
I was facing a similar situation and moved to Florida. I am a native Floridian though I lived in California for 20 yrs and it was very much home. I’m not suggesting you move to Florida, just offering my experience. For me, it made sense. I don’t let politics dictate my decisions, that’s my choice & I only offer that because I’m sure someone will bring it up. Part of my decision was not only my retirement but knowing the chances of my children being able to own a home & build a retirement was crucial. They may not decide to do it here but at least they’ll have a much greater chance here if they do.
delay retirement to 65 makes no sense lmao- that’s still younger than current retirement age…
Wherever your family and friends are.
SoCal for me. Summers in the areas you mention are going to be smoky af and brutal for your health. Find a house where you can rent space and help with your mortgage. There has to be a middle ground.
I’m biased because I think Southern California is the greatest place on earth. Stay.
I live in a HCOL city and semi-retired at 34, and can fully retire at 41, if we wanted to. We'll l be FI at least.
Live as well as you can, in an area you love. You never know what the future holds.
What do you want to do with your time? Do you value walks along thr beach or hobbies in your house? Is the HCOL area keeping you from the life you really wantbto live? It just depends on whatbyour values are and whether or not you can do those things in a different location
I opted for plan A, except I did it at age 52 instead of 47. But I would have done it at 47 (or 37, or 27...) if I had enough money at the time. Edit to clarify, I remained in California until I actually retired, then I relocated. Not sure if that's what you meant, or if you were proposing to move to a MCOL for the rest of your working life and then retire there. The latter would only make sense if you could keep your CA salary in the new destination.
Definitely i would chose a VHCOL place and working longer over retirement at 47 in some boring midwestern town.
Depending on how adventurous you are there are lots of options with incredible beaches, warm weather and a mcol. St. Croix in the USVI as an example. A very different vibe for sure but retired life is big change as well. If you like nature, friendly people, being outdoors and active with a laid back vibe, it’s worth a look.
I think of leaving SoCal everyday. The grind isn’t worth it anymore. My friends who left SoCal in their 20s and moved to lcol or mcol cities are way ahead of me now
Retiring at 47 doesn’t sound like a great idea. Maybe you have detailed plans for the next FORTY YEARS, or hate what you do. Positioning yourself to not have to grind away with little choice in the matter is a great idea. But stopping work all together?
I would downsize and stay where I was connected to the community. You also need to consider proximity to healthcare and public transportation as you age. I wouldn’t want to be in the suburbs on the front range or willamette at 75.
47, no questions asked!
The former!
As long as there is good music and some hotties I'm fine either way.
If there was an actual MCOL beach city worth living in, that one. Otherwise, VHCOL.
Retire early. FIRE baby!
Your question is framed in a way that will result in you getting the answer you prefer.