Michael Ash writes:

Apparently it's not the only reason. You said quite directly that your
happiness depends on money and that you have none. Living where you want
is clearly not enough to make you happy.

True, but it leaves me happier than living where I don't want to live, all
else being equal. Money allowed me to move to where I wanted to live.

Not true. You're skipping over the whole risk analysis. Yes, it's possible
that if you move away then you'll be stuck somewhere else with no money.
It's also possible that you'll find a good job and have money and the
means to visit often. *Logically*, you should make the move if the
probability of success multiplied by the value of success is greater than
the probability of failure multiplied by the negative value of failure.

It isn't.

You can further reduce the risk by not moving until you've found a job at
your destination. These days it's entirely possible to apply for a job and
go through much of the interview process remotely. This is especially true
in IT and especially if you're one of the best in whatever niche you have.
If you're not one of the best, maybe you ought to dedicate some of your
time to becoming one.

Nobody will hire from a foreign country when there are plenty of locals. And
I don't want to move to Fargo.

Of course not, but there are plenty of other cities that aren't dumps.

None of them is Paris.

Non sequiter. This analysis would only make sense if the entire goal of
your life is to live in Paris.

Living in a place you like is important. One of the things that people spend
a lot of money on is a place to live.

It's really difficult to find a
substitute for money. But visiting Paris on occasion can be a very good
substitute for living there.

No, it cannot. I know this from experience. True for all cities, in fact.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because you just made that up. I never
proposed moving to a "dump". Move to a nice city. Yes, they exist. Even in
the US. Even in places where you can find a job.

A nice city is Paris. Many people obviously agree, since the cost of living
is high.

Only relevant if your goal is maximizing your time in the city and nothing
else. I have it straight from you that this is not actually the case,
though.

One reason for having money is to be able to live where you want, all the
time. I live where I want all the time, even with no money, because I had the
foresight to move to where I wanted to live when I had the money to do so.

I live in Alexandria, Virginia. It's across the river from Washington, DC,
on the Potomac. I'm a short walk from three grocery stores, a movie
theater, the regular kind of theater, a bicycle shop, two post offices, a
whole bunch of good restaurants, and various other shops. I'm a short
bicycle ride away from Alexandria's Old Town, which is a really nice place
to visit, and from various trails and parks. I'm a slightly longer ride
from all the DC monuments and museums, and a lot of other nice commercial
centers in the area. But I'm not actually *in* DC, so I don't have to deal
the crapitude over there. And I own my own place, relatively small, but
still 1000sqft with two bedrooms. I practically live in a park, with lots
of small buildings and trees and open spaces. And I'm only about an
80-minute drive from the gliderport which, while a bit long sometimes, is
really not that bad.

The climate is terrible there.

You seem to be in this sort of paradoxical situation where you need money
to be happy but are unwilling to make any changes to your life to achieve
it, because you're too afraid of losing what you have.

I'm unwilling to move. That's only one change, and it's a huge one.

Well, what's so great about what you have?

It's Paris.

You are by your own admission not happy, so why is it worthwhile to keep
things as they are?

I'm not trying to keep things as they are, except that I wish to continue
living in Paris. That isn't _everything_.