Nope, my exact words were: "And some of us have managed to pull off all of the above. But I doubt very many; it's pretty tough. Life, like choosing skis, is full of tradeoffs." Having grown up in California skiing Tahoe and Mammoth, and knowing the sample bias here at Epic, I'll stand by that. It's quite possible you've personally pulled off the Trifecta. But most people don't. Sure, there are jobs in the Bay Area over to Sacto, and LA. down to San Diego. Not to mention Denver and Boulder and Seattle. Unclear about SLC. But how does that number compare to the rest of the southern, central, and eastern U.S.? Maybe not so giant after all. Don't recall the Bay Area ever had scads of serious jobs, in fact, it was more about the coolness of just living there. I guess if you want to do service sector stuff for Google employes, it's all good. Then when you add in cost of living, hmmm. I have friends SOMA who cannot leave because their house value is increasing by 10K a month. So scratch SF and increasingly Berkeley for immigration or even changing houses, a lot of LA, which is a good ways from snow anyway, and Boulder and Seattle get sketchy. Sometimes you'd like to live somewhere, but it doesn't make financial sense. Or it does, but not if you aim for that job you've dreamed of. Or what if your partner gets a great offer in Atlanta? "Hey, honey, it's been real. Keep in touch. Let me know when you deliver."
And all these satisfied residents are staying because of the steep chutes, huh?
Umm, so where exactly are these jobs and economic opportunities out East (superior to the West)? And how far away are they from skiing? This is what I don't understand about your argument. How far away from Stowe do you have to go to get comparable economic opportunities to Denver? Unless I am missing something, you have to go a pretty long way- I strongly suspect to get a clear trump to Denver, you have to go to Boston- and when economic opportunities increase, so do home values that eat up much of that extra income.
From what I can tell off of Google Maps, Living in Boston and hitting up Killington or Stowe is roughly equivalent to living in Denver and day skiing to Aspen- and nobody does that.
Does Boston offer clearly superior economic opportunities than the Seattle Metro? Because Seattle proper to Crystal Mountain is 1:50.
This all ignores that economic opportunity is better addressed in the individual than the aggregate. if I work in the financial sector, my job opportunities are a lot better in Des Moines than Denver. If I am an aeronautical engineer, I'm probably better off in Seattle than Albuquerque.
But I can't find any way that this argument isn't silly. It isn't the East coast that offers better economic opportunity, it is that once you decide to live in the mountains, within about an hour of a good ski hill, you are making sacrifices to do so whether that hill is East or West.