I have some comments here. perhaps this is the one thread we can be mature enough to agree to disagree without getting into a cockfight!
1. debt > paying it off is not correcting the behavior. correct the behavior first.
2. I agree 2million%
3. I do not agree with this one. earn more money and live near it so you can spend more money? let's flip this around. how about live where the money isn't. Mr East London cruises into work, no traffic, probably only gets 2 or 3 hours of actual work in. goes home for lunch, leaves early, no weekends. its not as competitive as being in the top 80th percentile world. He works the same job all his life. and retires with a meagre pension that just about leaves him comfortable for life. whats wrong with that? vs Mr NY: who probably dies from stress, or does not live long enough to enjoy his money. and where does My NY retire to anyways: a nice quiet seaside town like.... EAST LONDON!

4. I didn't fully understand this one, honestly.
If Mr East London wants to live in East London for the rest of his life and hope that his family is untouched by violence, that his savings, the country’s infrastructure, medical, etc. last for the remainder of his life, while simultaneously not really being able to react to an emergency situation in his own life, or within his circle of friends and family, or offer financial support to causes he may care about, well then he’s good.
Mr New York could certainly have some work stress, but there are few things better for work stress than being financially secure. A state that he gets to
really quickly,
if he manages to earn enough to get past the high costs of housing. Mr New York gets to travel around the world, send his family to world class medical experts, or help them out financially if things go to crap. He gets to holiday anywhere in the world, put real cash towards the causes he cares about, and ultimately can retire young, and probably go anywhere in the world at all for retirement or just keep on traveling as he sees fit.
He also gets to live in New York.
You’re really arguing that (3) doesn’t matter if you’re happy to just self subsist. Which is certainly a valid position to take, but not something I think most would opt for, given the choice.
The reasoning that usually takes people down this path (earning little, but living frugally) is that they themselves don’t perhaps care about the material aspects of wealth, however, wealth is so much more than the ability to buy “stuff” - it includes, safety, freedom, time saving and an enormously enhanced ability to help others.
4) is just the observation that places that are “high cost” are usually just so because of immovable property (houses/flats), and that if someone in a low CoL area nets R240k a year and spends R10k/m on a bond, then someone who nets R2.4m a year (so 10x) in an expensive area is probably going to spend considerably less than R100k/m on their bond, and even if they did, their disposable income is still R100k/m, as opposed to R10k/m, which even in an expensive area can buy them sooo much more.
Eventually, they both pay off their house, and now the one person has R20k/m disposable and the other has R200k/m disposable, and the PPP gap diverges even more. Not to mention that the person in the expensive area now also owns an expensive house outright.