Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Santa Cruz seems nice, but I assume the commute is long during rush hour.

I wouldn't mind living in a suburb or satellite city with its own life, a place with independent businesses and some restaurants and bars (dives are OK with me). Even rural life life has its appeal, trading culture for privacy and outdoor life. But a bedroom community would bore me.

I don't have to own, especially not right away. But large dogs make renting difficult, unless Bay Area rentals are more dog friendly than other areas. Unfortunately, I already have the dogs, so I can't move without em.

I wouldn't expect anything remotely like poverty, even in the Bay Area, on that income. But there are jobs in other cities that don't pay as well but enough that I could afford housing in an interesting neighborhood and have money left over to do fun things. I see myself feeling very happy about my work and non-work lives in those cities. So I don't hesitate to apply for those jobs.

I contrast that to how friends who have moved to the Bay Area live. They bought houses in sleepy east bay communities, and the excitement in their lives consists of living off of the perks of their Silicon Valley tech jobs (going to movie night at work and whatnot). They love it, but it sounds really dull to me. Maybe they are just people who want different things than I do (like kids), or maybe that's just what life has to offer in the Bay Area. I don't know.

So I'm curious about whether I could afford to live in an area that is interesting to me (read: has access to non-chain restaurants and stores, offers more events than movie night in the park) and still actually have money to spend on fun things. And keep my dogs. And let them poop somewhere outside.