> If I were single and in my 20s, SF would be where I go
You're conflating SF and Bay Area. SF is not the Bay Area. SF isn't even in Silicon Valley, technically. The issues with SF are not the issues in SV/BA.
> California is very expensive for what you get
California is crazy expensive. Often I look for alternatives. What would be a good alternative?
I want to be near the ocean. I don't want to freeze in the winter and don't want 100F with 90% humidity in the summer.
Just with that criteria I ruled out most of the country.
But then add the requirement of having good jobs. So what's left?
I live in an area that meets most of these requirements, plus many others that California doesn't meet. I lived in many different places, including California, and in the end it's a matter of balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each place.
You are basically defining your requirements in a way that can only be met California. If California didn't exist, would you jump in the ocean? What I mean is that perhaps one of your requirements could be relaxed so you can get many other benefits. For instance, the "100F with 90%" humidity is greatly mitigated by Air Conditioning or going out very early in the day. When I spent some time in Louisiana, which is crazy hot and humid, I was able to mitigate the heat in the way I describe to the point that it didn't affect my life.
> If I were single and in my 20s, SF would be where I go
You're conflating SF and Bay Area. SF is not the Bay Area. SF isn't even in Silicon Valley, technically. The issues with SF are not the issues in SV/BA.
> California is very expensive for what you get
California is crazy expensive. Often I look for alternatives. What would be a good alternative?
I want to be near the ocean. I don't want to freeze in the winter and don't want 100F with 90% humidity in the summer.
Just with that criteria I ruled out most of the country.
But then add the requirement of having good jobs. So what's left?
So, here I remain in California.