[BeetleB]

>Bay area in a nutshell. You can have higher savings rates too

Your example is a higher savings amount, not rate.

In your example, I may still prefer the 80K one. Why?

Assume taxes are a third of your salary in both places.

In the 80K job, you save 40K, and your living expenses are 13.3K

In the 160K job, you save 56K and your living expenses are 50.7K

In Nowhereville, you are saving 3 times your annual cost of living. In SV, you are saving just a little more than 1x.

The result? Even though you save more in SV, you will not be able to retire quicker.

(My claim of 1/3 in taxes in both places is likely inaccurate, but the essence of the calculation doesn't change).

A higher saving amount does not mean earlier retirement (unless you move to a cheap city to retire).

[barrkel]

You'll still need to retire in a cheap city in Nowhereville. Why not live in SV when you're young and retire to Nowhereville, vs living in Nowhereville all your life?

[derefr]

Alternatively, if you can get a remote job, live in Cambodia or the Phillipines or somewhere else with an extremely low cost of living while getting paid 0.5x SV salary, and end up with 95% savings. Then you can retire anywhere.

[kobeya]

0.5 salary (generous for someone remote working in a different timezone without a large personal network, imho) with 95% savings is the same as 48% savings with 1x salary, not to mention greater growth potential. You're example doesn't seem all that different from working in the valley a few years, then cashing out to retire in SE Asia.

[BeetleB]

>Why not live in SV when you're young and retire to Nowhereville, vs living in Nowhereville all your life?

Depends on your preferences. I don't want to move to a new place when I retire. I'd like to retire in the same place where I have friends, know the city, system, etc.