Good question. The answer I think comes from the fact that "cost of living" is a blunt measure, however it's measured. Price differences vary between by good. Rent might be more expensive, but ipods and levis cost the same.

If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win. Also, some people are more flexible than other in their consumption which is influenced by relative price. So, they might consume less housing by house sharing but more iphones and clothes.

Try figure out if a 22 year old barista living in a trendy city centre with 3 housemates, but a nice nice budget for gadgets and clothes is better off then one in a small town with a completely different lifestyle. Its extremely subjective.

> If you don't pay rent (eg you live with parents), its probably a net win. If you don't consume much housing (eg, 4 person house share), it might still be a net win.

The typical person in the job market has a spouse or children. Having to have multiple roommates on top of that is generally considered a nonstarter.

When you say, "If you don't consume much housing...," you're saying, "If you're single and unattached..." And it's only a net win as long as you stay that way, which isn't usually the case.

To connect the dots the rest of the way, when housing prices shoot through the roof, people with families and special needs get pushed out. What is left are people with fixed housing costs and single people who don't see having many roommates as being a quality of life issue.

I don't think we disagree on much. A family of four that can't comfortably cut back on housing. Their cost of living is even higher in an expensive housing town than the measure suggests because the average also takes into account the single house share people.