It Depends

Dr. B asked: Which is preferable: living someplace where a house costs half a million bucks and there's a lot to do, or living someplace where a house costs under $100K and there's nothing to do?

My immediate response: Done both. Expensive with lots to do.

But as I thought about it, I realized that the question wasn't adequate.

Red State Capital City Suburb was cheap and there wasn't much to do. East Coast Big City is expensive and there's lots to do. We are happier in East Coast Big City. You might think this answers the question.

Except that S and I were both unhappy with our work situations in Red State Capital City Suburb; if we'd loved our jobs, we would have stayed and been fine. Our families are in East Coast Big City which had as much to do with our choice to move here as there being lots to do. The ugliness of Red State was a perpetual irritation in our daily lives, completely extraneous to cost or activities.

L.A. is expensive and has lots to do, but we would not be happy there. Rural New England is cheap and there's nothing to do, but we would be happy there.

I'm not surprised that Dr. B got answers going every which way, because each person's choice is influenced by so many factors beyond those two. But simplifying things is certainly a good way to get a conversation going.