Here's the argument for geographic arbitrage that most discussions miss.

I moved from a city where my $95k salary barely covered a comfortable lifestyle to a lower-cost city where $95k funds a genuinely comfortable life with a 35% savings rate. My income didn't change. My quality of life didn't meaningfully decline. My savings rate increased from 8% to 35%.

The math over 10 years: 8% savings rate on $95k net = $7,600/year invested = approximately $107,000 at 7% return. 35% savings rate on $95k net = $33,250/year invested = approximately $460,000 at 7% return.

Same income. $353,000 more wealth over 10 years from a location change.

The counterargument is real: career opportunities may be better in high-cost cities, and the long-term income growth differential could outweigh the savings rate advantage. This calculation requires knowing your own career trajectory. For remote workers and people in portable careers, the case for geographic arbitrage is compelling.