[nostrademons]

There's nothing stopping you from moving to a lower cost-of-living area when you need to dip into savings. If you save up a million dollars in the Bay Area, you always have the option of moving to Chicago and buying 4 houses, if you're willing to put up with the cold. The reverse does not necessarily hold: if you save up $100K in Chicago and then need to come up with a down payment for a home in the Bay Area, you're screwed.

For that matter, the higher home prices also come back to you if you choose to move elsewhere (as long as Bay Area real estate doesn't crash). A number of the homes I've been looking at are on the market because the kids are grown, the owners are retired, and now they want to take their $1.3-$2.4M and move to Nevada/Florida/Arizona or some other low-COL area.

[closeparen]

Besides the life you and your family have built.

If saving $30k in Chicago lets you sustain your lifestyle for 12 months of unemployment, and saving $30k in San Francisco gives you the option to leave everyone you know and move 2200 miles to Chicago for 12 months of unemployment, those dollars of savings are not at all the same in terms of the protection they offer.

Living in the Bay Area can be a good deal, but to figure out whether that's the case, you need to set savings targets in terms of equivalent capabilities. Different people can place higher and lower value on location stability, but in any case the value is not $0; moving trucks and realtors are not free.