Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (91620)	6/18/2012 12:46:23 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218937

if you are retired choose low cost city. If young and active working, high cost city's the best bet. Here's why. If person is in early thirties active and working (and needs keeping work since most likely has young family paying debts of house and raising little kids). It is better to stick to a high cost town. In high cost town chances of getting steady job is better than in lower cost city. During the Lost decade, a Brazilian retiree could go live in low cost city. A Brazilian in mid thirties had better to live in São Paulo or Rio although more expensive chances are better for steady job. If depression as severe and sustainable, as in Brazil's Lost Decade, high cost city won't be high cost for too long since its prices would be depressed too.